SMcCandlish
Status: Busy 
 | Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 16:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
| 5 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 15:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marine 69-71 | Motions | 26 October 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area | 6 November 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 August 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
- Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.
Technical news
- Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
- RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Most recent poster here: KJP1 (talk)
Mini-toolbox:
- My Wikimedia Library (journal access, etc.; to get your own, see WP:LIBRARY)
- Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Script (req. WP:AWB access and JWB installed or is just a normal redlink)
- Special:LintErrors
- Hunt down abuse of
{{em}}for non-emphasis italics [1] — and<em>[2] - Move and redirect articles with slashes in their titles when feasible (i.e. when not proper names that require them)
- NAC-at-ANRFC geekery to remember
- NAC-at-RM geekery to remember
- Ref consistency checker (use in preview or sandbox):
{{ref info|Manx cat|style=float:right}} - Reliably regex match a single linebreak in wikicode (or elsewhere):
(\r\n|\r|\n) - Helpful links related to WP:MEATBOT, WP:COSMETICBOT, and code cleanup: WP:EDITORFRIENDLY (a.k.a. WP:EDITORHOSTILE), WP:COSMETIC (a.k.a. WP:SUBSTANTIVE), WP:SPECTRUM
- All WP:CUE project participants should watchlist this alerts page.
Redirects for discussion
- 01 Sep 2024 – Eight-Ball (talk · edit · hist) →Eight-ball was RfDed by Thryduulf (t · c); see discussion
Featured list candidates
- 10 Oct 2024 – 1990–91 snooker world rankings (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 10 Oct 2024 – Kingsley Kennerley (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Oct 2024 – Tessa Davidson (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); start discussion
- 25 Sep 2024 – Mink Nutcharut (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); start discussion
- 30 Aug 2024 – Thelma Carpenter (billiards player) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); see discussion
- 08 Jun 2024 – 2024 World Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); start discussion
- 07 Jun 2024 – 2024 Tour Championship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); start discussion
Good article reassessments
- 26 Oct 2024 – Bottle pool (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
Requested moves
- 16 Oct 2024 – Rudolf Wanderone (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Minnesota Fats by TenPoundHammer (t · c); see discussion
Other:
- MW Editing team e-meetings, /wikimedia.org/edit-tasktriage via Google Hangouts (Tuesdays, noon–12:30pm PDT = 20:00 UTC during DST, 19:00 otherwise, but often half an hour earlier).
- MW Tech Advice e-meetings, via IRC at #wikimedia-tech connect (Wednesdays, 1–2pm PDT = 16:00–17:00 UTC).
- meta:Talk:Spam blacklist – global blacklist requests
|
As of 2024-11-06 , SMcCandlish is Active. 
|
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Old stuff to resolve eventually
editCueless billiards
edit
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sad...editHow well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Some more notes on Crystalate
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[3]; info about making records:[4]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[5]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:No5 Balls.html. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
|
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
|
You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hee Haw
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Redundant sentence?
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed? There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Note to self on WP:WikiProject English language
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
Excellent mini-tutorial
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
|
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
You had previously asked that protection be lowered on WP:MEDMOS which was not done at that time. I have just unprotected the page and so if you have routine update edits to make you should now be able to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Ooh...potential WikiGnoming activity...
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
I stumbled upon Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects and there are ~100 pages whose pages have been moved, but the editnotices are still targeted to the redirect page. Seems like a great, and sort of fun, WikiGnoming activity for a template editor such as yourself. I'd do it, but I'm not a template editor. Not sure if that's really your thing, though. ;-) Cheers,
|
Note to self
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Don't forget to deal with: Template talk:Cquote#Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2020. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
Now this
edit UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Not sure the ping went through, so noting here. Just spotted where a now-blocked user moved a bunch of animal breed articles back to parenthetical disambiguation from natural disambiguation. As they did it in October and I'm only catching it now, I only moved back two just in case there was some kind of consensus change. The equine ones are definitely against project consensus, the rest are not my wheelhouse but I'm glad to comment. Talk:Campine_chicken#Here_we_go_again. Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
|
PGP
edit UnresolvedFYI, it looks like your key has expired. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Aiee! Thanks, I'll have to generate a new one when I have time to mess around with it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
German article on houndstooth, Border tartan, and related patters
edit Unresolvedde:Rapport (Textil) is an intersting approach, and we don't seem to have a corresponding sort of article. Something I might approach at some point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Current threads
editCapitalization after a hyphen
editHey there. In 2020, you moved Three-Fifths Compromise to Three-fifths Compromise, with the edit summary WP:HYPHEN (don't capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hypen it itself a proper name).
I have a question about that: are you certain WP:HYPHEN is saying "if what follows a hyphen is a proper noun" rather than "if the hyphenated compound is a proper noun"? If your interpretation of the wording is accurate, then I would propose that the exemption for "titles of published works" be extended to all proper nouns. In the case of the Three-Fifths Compromise, plenty of sources capitalize "fifths", including AP, NYT, WaPo, Forbes, LA Times, and Guardian, etc. This is also an outlier, as we have articles like Coca-Cola ("cola" is not a proper noun), Spider-Man ("man" is not a proper noun), Quasi-War ("war" is not a proper noun), Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("discrimination" is not a proper noun), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Collapse-boxing a long thread so I don't have to keep scrolling past it
|
|---|
|
The following rules apply to hyphenated terms appearing in a title capitalized in headline style [...]
- Always capitalize the first element.
- Capitalize any subsequent elements unless they are articles, prepositions, coordinating conjunctions ([...]), or such modifiers [...] following musical key symbols.
- If the first element is merely a prefix or combining form that could not stand by itself as a word (anti, pre, etc.), do not capitalize the second element unless it is a proper noun or proper adjective.
- Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number (twenty-one or twenty-first, etc.) or hyphenated simple fraction (two-thirds in two-thirds majority).
The examples that follow demonstrate the numbered rules [...]
- [...]
- Record-Breaking Borrowings from Medium-Sized Libraries (2)
- [...]
- Anti-intellectual Pursuits (3)
- A Two-Thirds Majority of Non-English-Speaking Representatives (3, 4)
- [...]
APA:
In title case, capitalize the following words in a title or heading:
- [...]
- major words, including the second part of hyphenated major words (e.g., "Self-Report," not "Self-report")
MLA:
When you copy an English-language title or subtitle [...] use title-style capitalization: capitalize the first word, the last word, and all principal words, including those that follow hyphens in compound terms.
[...]
Do not capitalize the word following a hyphenated prefix if the dictionary shows the prefix and word combined without a hyphen.
- Theodore Dwight Weld and the American Anti-slavery Society
AMA:
In titles, subtitles, and text headings, do not capitalize the second part of a hyphenated compound in the following instances:
If either part is a hyphenated prefix or suffix (see [...])
- Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Ankylosing Spondylitis
If both parts together constitute a single word (consult [...])
- Reliability of Health Information Obtained Through Online Searches for Self-injury [...]
- Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children
- [...]
However, if a compound is temporary or if both parts carry equal weight, capitalize both words.
- [...]
- Low-Level Activity
- Drug-Resistant Bacteria
- [...]
In titles, subtitles, and text headings, capitalize the first letter of a word that follows a lowercase (but not a capital) Greek letter (see [...]), a numeral ([...]), a symbol, a stand-alone capital letter, or an italicized organic chemistry prefix, [...]
AP makes no mention of capitalization after a hyphen, but "The Star-Spangled Banner" is given as an example of a title (which we also capitalize, would you look at that).
InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Post-holiday followup
edit@InfiniteNexus: More research of the above sort is needed. To just dive in and do one bit of it, I find that MHRA Style Guide [15] has a ridiculously inconsistent rule to capitalize after a hyphen, even when it's a prefix that cannot stand alone, except when that prefix is specifically Re-. There is no rationale given for this weirdness. I think it would be worthwhile to look in other major style guides and see whether anything like a largely consistent pattern actually emerges. Your four American ones (at least two of which, APA and AMA, have been moving over time to be increasingly consistent with Chicago on many points) don't cover enough ground for us to be certain of this. And AMA is trying to be meaningful but failing dismally. "Short-term" and "low-level" are both the same kind of term; same goes for "self-injury" and "drug-resistant". They can all be split up without hyphens, without losing meaning: "A low level of drug resitance was observed over a short term in a study of patients admitted for self injury". (I guess this is what happens when medical people with no linguistics background try to write material about English-language structure and usage.) The unitary hyphenated compounds below cannot be split up this way (though some are sometimes colloquially written as hyphenless closed compounds: "knowhow" and "runnerup", but not "fatherinlaw").
Iff it turns out that there is a demonstrable lean across all major style guides, then we could probably encapsulate it with something simplified and easy to remember and apply, which might (more resesearch is needed) be something like:
In title case, capitalize after a hyphen when the compound is temporary (usually a multi-word modifier that would be written without hyphens if not used adjectivally): Real-Estate Demography, Remote-Control Operation, Common-Sense Guidelines. Do not capitalize after a hyphen if the term is a compound with:
- a prefix (Pre-eclampsia, Anti-establishment), unless what follows the hyphen is a proper name Neo-Aristotelian;
- a suffix (Dada-esque);
- a compound with a synergistic meaning separate from that of its parts and which is almost always hyphenated (Father-in-law, Know-how, Runner-up).
A construction like this would avoid AMA's categorical confusion; avoid highly debatable ideas like "constitute a single word", "if both parts carry equal weight", "principal words", "major words"; avoid "the dictionary" nonsense (there is no such thing as "the" dictionary, but lots of dictionaries which often conflict with each other and have different levels of prescriptive versus descriptive approach); and avoid nitpicky geekery no one is apt to care about, like musical key symbols and italicized organic chemistry prefixes (we should not address minutiae like that unless long-term dispute arises about it, per WP:CREEP and WP:MOSBLOAT).
However, I find the "the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number" very dubious, and same with "-century" constructions; I have seen many titles of things that use "Twenty-two", "Fifty-third", and "Fourth-century"; this is one of several cases that needs more investigation in more style guides. And in the end, we are not required to do what a loose preponderance of other style guides seem to lean toward, especially when they contradict each other as to details and rationales; they are just duly informative with regard to what we decide. But we do need to decide something, since the extant material at MOS:TITLES has a gap, and people are not agreeing on what fits inside it.
PS: Your "The Star-Spangled Banner" is given as an example of a title (which we also capitalize, would you look at that)
smirking isn't constructive. You know as well as I do that WP content is not a source, and that editors doing stylistically questionable things at a particluar article has nothing to do with whether a style rule we have should be changed. More to the point, the style guides you quoted are not in agreement on it, and AMA for one would have it as "The Star-spangled Banner" because "star-spangled" is not a temporary compound but a poetic 18th-century neologism that is a unitary term and appears to have nearly no existence without the hyphen. MLA would also lower-case "-spangled" because of its dictionary rule [16]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you are still interested in looking into this, feel free to so, but right now I do not have time to continue delving into this matter. The four (five, if counting AP) style guides I looked at are probably the most widely used in the U.S., so it seems safe to assume that this is the norm among most external style guides. I don't have access to style guides from other countries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Getting rid of {rp}
editApplause! Now tell me how to get round wp:CITEVAR objections like this one: Talk:Eric Gill/Archive 1#Proposal to change citations of McCarthy's books to use harvard referencing and Talk:Eric Gill/Archive 1#Page number citations are expected when the source is a substantial book. I had hoped to get the Eric Gill article up to GA standard but I am too much of a secret typographer to put my name to a GAN, given its current spider-crawled-in-the-ink appearance. Sigh. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JMF: I think in the Gill case (if I'm reading it right), the other party's objection was to inline parenthetical referencing with page numbers, which the community also deprecated already, i.e. doing things like "This is a claim (Smith 2023, p. 7).", instead of "This is a claim.
<ref>Smith 2023, p. 7.</ref>", or the templated equivalents "This is a claim.<ref>{{harv|Smith|2023|p=7}}</ref>", or "This is a claim.{{sfn|Smith|2023|p=7}}". It's actually possible that 14GTR was literally opposed to ever including page numbers in any form, in which case his argument has no WP:P&G legs to stand on and should just be ignored.Sudden flash of possible insight: A strong case can be made that because the community did clearly deprecate inline parenthetical referencing in 2020 (WP:PAREN), and the rationale for doing so was its reading-flow disruptiveness, not the fact that round-bracket characters were involved, this actually translates automatically to a deprecation of{{Rp}}as well. It is simply another format for doing inline parenthetical referencing (its own documentation states explicitly that it's an adaptation from "full Harvard referencing and AMA style", though ultimately this is me quoting myself), just with fewer details and using superscript and colon, instead of more details with round brackets and no superscript or colon. That is, the deprecation is of citations that are inline and parenthetical, not inline and using what Americans call parentheses (round brackets). So, replacing "This is a claim (Smith 2023, p. 7)." but retaining "This is a claim<ref>Smith 2023.</ref>{{Rp|7}}" to produce "This is a claim.[1]:7" is simply defying that site-wide consensus by still putting part of the citation (page numbers or other in-source locations) inline parenthetically – especially given that the template can be used to produce things like "This is a claim.[1]:viii–xiv, 7–9, 12, and back cover". Indeed, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful already includes "converting parenthetical referencing to an acceptable referencing style". So, you could actually try that argument right now in doing cleanup of{{Rp}}.Because of the "let chaos reign" stupidity that is WP:CITEVAR, some people are probably apt to try to argue against this, but I think their case will be weak and easily deflated. That said, probably the only path to total cleanup is going to be really fully documenting how to convert{{Rp}}into other formats, and why it is a good idea, and why{{Rp}}is bad, and then have a follow-up RfC or TfD to formally deprecate{{Rp}}and mandate its replacement (mostly by AWB and sometimes even by bots for simple cases), so that it is no longer considered a valid "citation style" for CITEVAR purposes, no question about it. And I think the work in doing that documentation is going to be in my lap, though I'm not over-eager to wade into it right this second. It gives me a headache just thinking about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)- The stonewall response was much as I expected though I had hoped that time and the offer of a ladder to climb down might just do the trick. AFAICS, the only way forward is to formally propose that {{rp}} be deprecated in favour of harvard referencing. Trouble is, when I tried to use the {{harvid}} method way back, I found it hostile. I persisted and matters much improved when I found {tl|sfnp}}. But other editors may have had their fingers burned and will resist, based on their bad experience way back when. So preparing the ground with explanation and education may be needed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Took me "a minute" to figure it out, too. I've started the slog of fully documenting how to replace
{{rp}}, at User:SMcCandlish/Replacement of Template:Rp. Still needs some more info in it, and proofreading for any markup errors that mess up any of the code examples. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Took me "a minute" to figure it out, too. I've started the slog of fully documenting how to replace
- The stonewall response was much as I expected though I had hoped that time and the offer of a ladder to climb down might just do the trick. AFAICS, the only way forward is to formally propose that {{rp}} be deprecated in favour of harvard referencing. Trouble is, when I tried to use the {{harvid}} method way back, I found it hostile. I persisted and matters much improved when I found {tl|sfnp}}. But other editors may have had their fingers burned and will resist, based on their bad experience way back when. So preparing the ground with explanation and education may be needed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Incremental updates
editUpdate: This is going very slowly, but I'm committed to working on it. It's going to require a bunch of very well-tested regular expressions, used in series in a JS user script, to catch and clean up a large number of content use cases, so that it produces uniform citation formatting (and without breaking anything). My earlier-documented work toward that at the page mentioned above has already been surpassed, in code I'm developing off-site. I'll start building the regexes I'm working on into a JavaScript pretty soon and start testing that against real content and refining it. After it reliably works for all valid and most sane but invalid test cases, then we'll be able to do search–replace operations against {{rp}} that will have predictable results with minimal errors. This is going to be a big project. It was more difficult than I expected because XML syntax (much less XML mixed with a {{...}} syntax!) is incredibly difficult to parse accurately with regex (or anything else for that matter) reliably. I've been using advanced tools like regex101.com with complex blobs of valid and invalid test-case input, and using ChatGPT to try to work out particularly thorny matching failures, and so on. As an example, just one of the regexes developed so far looks like <ref\s+name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))\s*(?:(\/)|)>, and even this cannot yet handle <ref name=foo group=bar> to normalize the name= part, only to avoid breaking a ref that has a group= part (and it does not do anything to normalize the latter part yet, only the former). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- It now parses even stuff like
<ref group="bar's > / bar" extends=baz name='foos > / foo' follow="quux quux" />(and some of the code it's accounting for is only in the beta of mw:Help:Cite and not deployed on en.WP yet), though this one regex only fixes up thename=parameter; other passes with similar regexes would handle other attributes likegroup=to normalize their formatting. Then another pass to fix spacing that shouldn't exist between citations. And so on. And of course a pass to replace{{rp}}with{{sfnp}}or whatever. Like I say, a multi-step process that'll be done by using the regexes in JS. The regex in question is now the monstrous<ref\s+((?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!name\s*=).)*)?name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))(\s+(?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>).)*)*\s*(?:(\/)|)>. I'm suprised I pulled this off. Its one failure is that it can't gracefully handle the XML-valid (but technically ref-invalid) formname='foo "bar" baz'(single-quoted value with nested double quotes) or the completely invalidname="foo "bar" baz">; that's something that'll need to be handled by an earlier cleanup pass that looks just for those specific problems. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)- Regex upgraded again, to handle line-breaking between
<ref>attributes, as well as > inside quoted attributes aftername=.- The new regex (just for handling
namewith or without other attributes present) is:<ref\s+((?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!name\s*=)[\s\S])*)?name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))(\s+(?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!\s*\/>|"\s*>|'\s*>)[\s\S])*)*\s*(?:(\/)|)> - It is already sophisticated enough to handle input as awful as:
<ref group= "bar's > / bar" extends= baz name= ' foos > / foo ' follow= "quux > quux" />
- Even
<syntaxhighlight>can't deal with the above, but what I'm writing can. This one just cleans upname(toname="foos > / foo"from the above mess, and gets rid of the line break before the closing/>while we're at it); similar regexes in later passes will deal withgroup, etc., then eventually{{rp}}replacement. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC) - Reminder to self: At some point, the script will also have to account for
{{#tag:ref |Citation content here. |name=... |group=... |follow=... |extends=...}}(with parameters in various order and with or without linebreaks and extraneous spacing). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- The new regex (just for handling
- Regex upgraded again, to handle line-breaking between
- It now parses even stuff like
Intervene?
editHave you seen Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 92#Automating conversion of REF-plus-Rp to Sfn((m)p)? Do you want to launch a teaser trailer? Your call. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- @JMF: Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Vauthors
editPossibly telling people how to write harv citations is out of scope but I thought I should flag this one for you to include or ignore, your call. I've only just found the {{ref={{sfnref|blah blah}} }} facility and it is a lot more convenient that adding first=/last= to each and every name, just so you can write {{sfnp|last1|last2|last3|last4|2024}}. Here is a test example:
- Wang T, Mo L, Mo C, Tan LH, Cant JS, Zhong L, Cupchik G (June 2015). "Is moral beauty different from facial beauty? Evidence from an fMRI study". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 10 (6): 814–23. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu123. PMC 4448025. PMID 25298010.
Up to you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
|vauthors= in the documentation and scripting eventually. But |vauthors= should not be used except in an article entirely done in Vancouver-style references (or it's against WP:CITESTYLE's instructions to use a consistent referencing style). It's a poor idea to use that style in the first place because it outputs less-useful author metadata, and much more importantly is harder to parse for readers (it is less clear that something like "Tan LH" is an individual's name than "Tan, L. H." that matches the rest of our initials formatting and other name handling, most especially when "Tan LH" appears in an article otherwise using citations that output "Tan, L. H."), and it's more error-prone for editors because this weird name formatting must be done exactly perfectly in that parameter. Another serious fault with it is that we often actually know complete author names (and these can be quite helpful in distinguishing authors and even in finding the source in the first place if it's something without a free-to-read URL or DOI), but |vauthors= forces us to drop most of the name information we already have; it's a disservice to readers and to editors doing verification work. Any time I run into a |vauthors= in an article that is not consistently in Vanc style, I replace it with a set of |last1=|first1=... (unless I'm in a big hurry or something), often with more complete author names.Using |ref={{sfnref|...}} a.k.a. |ref={{harvid|..}} isn't dependent in any way on |vauthors=.Also, the Lua behind the citation templates can already parse the names inside |vauthors= (if they were done right) and use them with {{sfnp}}, {{harvp}}, etc., directly. If we remove the |ref={{sfnref|Wang ''et al''|2015}} from your example:
Here is a claim in the article.[1]
Wang T, Mo L, Mo C, Tan LH, Cant JS, Zhong L, Cupchik G (June 2015). "Is moral beauty different from facial beauty? Evidence from an fMRI study". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 10 (6): 814–23. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu123. PMC 4448025. PMID 25298010.
Just using the automated {{sfnp|Wang|Mo|Mo|Tan|2015}} is clearer and easier than using a |ref={{sfnref|Wang ''et al''|2015}} along with {{sfnp|Wang ''et al''|2015}}. And there doesn't seem to be a consensus that "et al." should be italicized as Latin, because it is so assimilated into English, like "i.e." and "e.g."; I don't think any of our citation templates italicize it. (But it should have a "." after it, italicized or not, even in British usage, since it's a truncation abbreviation, of et alia.) Even without the italics, just using the automated {{sfnp|Wang|Mo|Mo|Tan|2015}} is still clearer and easier than using a |ref={{sfnref|Wang et al.|2015}} along with {{sfnp|Wang et al.|2015}}. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise that {{sfnp}} was able to deconstruct a vauthors list. I could have saved myself a lot of hassle. Now I've given myself some more hassle to redo it properly. ;-^
- (I too prefer to change a vauthors list to
|first1= last1= first2= last2=etc. Generally I avoid using it when creating a citation except when the authors are Chinese or Japanese but the article is in English: how do I know if it is last=Mao first=Tse Tung or vice versa? I confess to using it too when ten authors are listed, for example on IPCC papers.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)- Well, like I said at the other page, no one's ever going to be "punished" for mixing citation styles. :-) Someone else just might rearrange it later. It can be a hassle. I got pretty irritated in fixing a vauthor instance stuck into an otherwise non-Vancouver article, as it had over 30 authors. I've seen someone reduce this to the first four last/first pairs then do
|display-authors=etal, but I'm a little down on that because we had more author information and doing that deleted it. I think I'll whip up a script to convert from vauthors to last/first, at least for my own convenience, but probably after doing this big ref-cleaner and rp-replacer job first.As for Asian names, I would guess just go by what the publication says; if it's "Chaudhary, C.; Richardson, A. J.; ...", and had a "Hua, X." or rarely but sometimes in Sinological material "Hua X" with no comma, in the author list, that already indicates the family-name order. But if the paper's author list started with "Chetan Chaudhary, Abigail Richardson, ..." and included something like "Hua Xiang" then it could be ambiguous; did they keep the same order, or give the Chinese names in surname-first order? I'm not sure vauthors would help here, since you wouldn't be sure whether to use "Hua X" or "Xiang H". Some familiarity with East Asian naming patterns helps. A name like "Hua Xhiangshu" or "Hua Xhian-shu" or "Hua Xiang-Shu" (orthography varies) would be family-name-first. People with more experience at it than I have can figure out Japanese names just by familiarity with which are usually given and which family names. Korean I'm generally at a loss with, unless it follows the Chinese pattern ("Lee Joon-gi" or "Lee Joon-Gi" or "Lee Joongi" is surname-first). It helps a little that a few Korean family names are overwhelmingly common, like Park/Pak/Paik, Lee/Li, Jun/Joon/June, Song/Sung, and Kim. When I'm unsure, I usually just Google around for other works by the same person until I can figure it out. If I could not at all, I would probably do
|author4=Hua Xiangusing the name order I had found (at all or most commonly) and leave it for someone with language/culture-specific experience to figure it out later. Maybe put in an HTML comment to this effect. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)PS: As I understand it, the vauthors to sfnp/harvp "translation" uses the author names up to the first four. I'm not sure what happens when someone has a main cite with
|vauthors=Chaudhary C, Richardson AJ, Hua X|display-authors=etal. I'm not sure if the latter is just a visual injection of "et al.", or whether it counts as a fourth author name and would require{{sfnp|Chaudhary|Richardson|Hua|et al.|2023}}. I suspect not, but something to test in a sandbox. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Well, like I said at the other page, no one's ever going to be "punished" for mixing citation styles. :-) Someone else just might rearrange it later. It can be a hassle. I got pretty irritated in fixing a vauthor instance stuck into an otherwise non-Vancouver article, as it had over 30 authors. I've seen someone reduce this to the first four last/first pairs then do
Games
editS, I know you're into games and their capitalizations, so take a look at List of abstract strategy games. I downcased a whole bunch of games listed there already, but there are a few I'm not sure what to do about, such as Connect Four, that might be trademarks, or might be generic. Do you have any insights or advice on those? Dicklyon (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Will have a look-see, but am in middle of some detailed thangs. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: For that one, we have an article title of Connect Four, and a lead that begins "Connect Four (also known as Connect 4, Four Up, Plot Four, Find Four, Captain's Mistress, Four in a Row, Drop Four, and Gravitrips". "Connect Four" does appear to be sourced as a Milton-Bradley (now Hasbro, after merger) trademark, along with the later "Connect 4" spelling. And in English, it is probably the WP:COMMONNAME even if we'd prefer otherwise. It is possible some of the other names are trademarks (or constitute titles of works in the form of commercially published variants of this game, more specifically), but would need to be investigated one-by-one, with those that are not trademarks being lower-cased. And it might be more WP:NPOV to rewrite most of the article to use one of the lowercased non-TM names, and only use "Connect Four" or "Connect 4" when referring to specific MB–Hasbro products/publications.What is presently at "score four" seems like it should be "Score Four" (trademark of Funtastic in 1968, AKA "Connect Four Advanced" by Hasbro later); there doesn't appear to be a generic name for that variant. And I'm skeptical it is a valid stand-alone article instead of a section at Connect Four, anyway; looks like it would not pass a GNG test at AfD.I didn't look closely at other examples. Were there some other iffy ones? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, lots of potentially iffy ones. Like what I did here. You concur? And what about things like Five Field Kono that are usually capped in sources, for no apparaent reason? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- The cleanup at peralikatuma looks spot-on to me. And five field kono (not even a redirect there? FFS ....) is a folk game, not a trademark/publication, so should be lower-case, and as: five-field kono (
five-field {{lang|ko-Latn|kono}}) – per MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:FOREIGN. The parent article gonu has similar issues. This is the kind of stuff MOS:GAMECAPS is specifically aiming to address (along with overcapitalization of things like sports, folk dances, sport/dance moves and techniques, game pieces, musical instruments, etc.). For at least the immediate future, we have one weird exception, for go (game), which is presently being rendered "Go", but obviously really should be go ({{lang|zh-Latn|go}}), but we would need another RfC to undo the previous one that arrived at "Go" through what seems to be a WP:SSF-based WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. But in no way is "Go" some kind of "capitalize all Asian folk games" excuse. So, kono/gonu. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)- Thanks, I fixed some more of those. There's still a ton of over-capping in games generally though. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes there is. Probably still in a lot of dance articles, too, though I cleaned up a lot of those. Sports mostly look pretty good, but I still run into obscure ones over-capitalizing stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I fixed some more of those. There's still a ton of over-capping in games generally though. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- The cleanup at peralikatuma looks spot-on to me. And five field kono (not even a redirect there? FFS ....) is a folk game, not a trademark/publication, so should be lower-case, and as: five-field kono (
- Sure, lots of potentially iffy ones. Like what I did here. You concur? And what about things like Five Field Kono that are usually capped in sources, for no apparaent reason? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Dahua Technology
edit
DoneHi SMcCandlish, I noticed that you are part of the category of Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions [17]. I have been working on Dahua Technology and am hoping you may be interested in reviewing an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding specific terminology used in the article. I'd be grateful for your feedback and assistance in implementing the edits as you see fit. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Will try to look into it tomorrow, but it's been a long day for me already. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- More like the next day or day after; have a lot going on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi SMcCandlish, just checking back to see whether you may have time to review the discussion on the Dahua Technology talk page. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and would appreciate assistance with the edits. Thanks again, Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Caitlyn23: This isn't really a Wikipedia:Third opinion matter, because it's not a dispute between two editors; rather, there has been a series of consensus discussions with unclear resolution. It would be much more appropriate for me to simply weigh in as one of those editors, than try to do what amounts to arbitrating between one editor (you) and a bunch of other editors (of differing opinions but some of them against yours). I have done that now, suggesting a compromise approach both sides hopefully will find workable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi SMcCandlish, just checking back to see whether you may have time to review the discussion on the Dahua Technology talk page. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and would appreciate assistance with the edits. Thanks again, Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- More like the next day or day after; have a lot going on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Artistic billiards
editHi! I've done a little bit of work on Artistic billiards over the last couple days - I'd never seen a match, but recently found a video on YouTube and it's very enjoyable! Shame it is so hard to find a detailed video. I've added some info from Trick Shot about Artistic Pool, but I'm not super familiar with the subject. Is there any funky sourcing outside of Shamos's book about these terms, Google isn't super helpful. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Not that I'm really aware of, or I would have split Artistic pool into its own article by now. I know Tom "Dr. Cue" Rossman is heavily involved in artistic pool (or at least was as of around 2010 or so). Old pool magazines like Inside Pool and Billiards Digest from that era probably have some coverage, but I no longer have a collection of that stuff (used to live in a converted warehouse space with oodles of room, but now a small apartment, so had to downsize a lot). AZBilliards may have some coverage, and there might be historical info among Rossman's own online materials. As for artistic [carom] billiards, carom in general isn't very popular in the English-speaking world but is a big deal otherwise, so I would expect more source materials to be available in French, Italian, Spanish, and Chinese, among other languages in the "carom world".One minor concern is that Trick shot#Artistic pool and Artistic billiards#Artistic pool are basically near-identical WP:CFORKS. The meat of the material should be merged to the former, with the latter reduced to a compressed summary, with
{{Main|Trickshot#Artistic pool}}at the top of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)- I thought as much. I am in the process of merging, although I don't really see how Trickshot would be the main article of the two. Perhaps I don't know enough about the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Well, artistic pool, artistic billiards, and trick-shot snooker are all essentially sub-topics (discipline-specific variants) of the Trick shot topic. Artistic billiards is well-developed in encyclopedic material enough for a stand-alone article. Artistic pool is slowly heading that direction; trick-shot snooker is not yet (though there's at least one specific-competition article). But Artistic pool (on a six-pocket pool table) is not a subtopic of Artistic billiards (on a pocketless carom table). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought as much. I am in the process of merging, although I don't really see how Trickshot would be the main article of the two. Perhaps I don't know enough about the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year
edit
|
Happy New Year! | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Happy New Year, SMcCandlish!
edit
SMcCandlish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Speed pool
editDo you know if Speed pool is actually a thing? It's been unsourced for a decade and I couldn't find much about it aside from a few tournaments of the same name. Seems non-notable to me, but thought I'd check first. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely a thing, a professional competitive discipline. Jeanette Lee was big into it, back before all her medical issues. AZBilliards and such probably have good coverage of it that we're not citing yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Post-holidays note to self
editSomething to deal with quickly:
Need to stop putting this off; will probably only take 10 minutes.
Ongoing:
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Creating policy to support an argument – removed incorrect stuff about tooltips, and MOS:TOOLTIP may also need an update
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (lists)#Fixing disambiguation confusion
Several things appear to have stalled out over the holidays:
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#JOBTITLES simplification proposal
- Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated
- Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Systematic mass edits to hidden category dates
- Template talk:Infobox person#Placement of "Sir"
- Template talk:Infobox person#Death cause parameter
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A worsening MOS:DASH issue (causing mounting WP:CONSISTENT problems)
Some of these may need to be restarted as RfCs.
See also:
- Talk:Cosimo III de' Medici#Requested move 15 December 2023 – WP:NCPEER's "rule" calling for long-ass page titles like Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany got discarded like chaff; this may be significant in addressing WP:PEERAGE's and WP:ROYALTY's other attempts to use WP:FAITACCOMPLI to impose "their own rules" (WP:CONLEVEL failure).
Forgot about this one for a long time (need to merge the NC material out of MOS:COMICS into WP:NCCOMICS):
An article still using deprecated WP:PARENTHETICAL referencing of the {{harv}} style to use as a cleanup testbed:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Dicing
editHello. You'll see that my edit was a typo, as I ' Claimed ', as inexpicably I'd typed ' qs ', not ' Vide ', and corrected it.
I'd say that this being an online dictionary, people who read it, by their nature, have an interest in what they don't understand; that not to use words, (though it wasn't my intention), that '...more than a few...' (sic) understand should be persuasive only if we weren't writing in English: to use that for a guide now, (not that that's contravening any Wikipaedia rule), should mean that at some past time somebody declared it is one, anyway; and it must have been sometime between one of the forms of Celtic speech used in Britain and today, since we're using English, here; words which, at one time, '...not more than a few...' knew, meaning we might still be uding Anglo-Saxon. So when did excluding the unfamiliar become a rule ? Dictionaries are still being published to explain both new and unfamiliar words; a pursuit disallowed, now, by this guide.
It's true I could have made ' Vide ' a link; but what's conversational for some is as abstuse as others' reasonings.
Yes, it was mentioned above ; but not all sections and sub-sections are read, and the re-emphasised words occupying the space of an old ink blot might very well, (for the majority, not ' The few ', who skip through what they read), have been the harmless ones that conveyed the distinction between tartan and dicing.
Anyway, regards to you. Heath St John (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Heath St John: Sorry about the "wasn't a typo fix" part; I had seen both your edits as a single combined diff, and only the edit summary of the second was visible, so it looked like the addition of the cross-reference was claimed to be a typo fix. I should have checked to see whether it was more than one edit with distinct edit summary rationales. Anyway, Wikipedia doesn't use q.v. (what I'm guessing was intended by qs) or vide this way. They're unfamiliar to too many readers, and don't really serve a purpose here (mostly because Wikipedia is not paper). If the mention was right there in the same block of text (as it was in this case), there is no reason to tell people where it is; and if it's widely separated, in a different section, the thing to do, if a cross-reference really seems needed, is to link to that section, e.g. with
{{see below|[[#History|below]]}}or whatever, which produces output like (). The usual purpose of q.v. is to refer to a headword, such as is found in a glossary; and vide is generally used in academic material to refer to a specific passage (and your use of it didn't provide such specificity). Anyway, the lead section at Sillitoe tartan is now even clearer than it was, with the terminological quibbles consolidated, so there's little if any room of confusion any longer. PS: Wikipedia style for abbreviated Latinisms like "q.v." and "i.e." and "e.g." and "et al." is to use the dots, and the ones that are well-assimilated into non-specialist English don't take italics, while the more obscure ones like "q.v." and "p.m.v" and "op. cit." (lots of them are legalisms or academicisms) are italicized. "Et al." is actually an edge case with regard to the italics; there is or was recently a discussion open about this, though I forget where. (Frustrating, since I was going to comment in it.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)- Very clear.
- Thanks very much. Heath St John (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Pushing beans
editHi there! In the future, I hope you can take a beat and consider WP:AGF instead of implying that someone is busy pushing beans up their nose, as you did in this edit summary. There's already too much gatekeeping at the project, and I don't think you want to come off as doing that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no AGF failure or gatekeeping in anything I said, or in reverting something I didn't (at least at the time) consider an improvement. I get the feeling you've not actually read or understood WP:BEANS. In short, it means don't give people ideas about monkeying around with stuff they don't need to be monkeying around with. It has nothing literal to do with noses and beans; its a metaphor. (And wasn't about you.) My point was that from my perspective, Trapper already had answered your query, and my further point was that people generally don't need to know about bot-related code, in detail in documentation of parameters for human editors to use, or a few of them are likely to mess around with it in unhelpful ways. Those who do have a reason to be involved with it (e.g. they operate a bot, or they're working on the cleanup category populated by the bot) are already going to know about that parameter and what it's doing (or will quickly know how/where to find out). That was the reasoning at the time (and doesn't fit in an edit summary). However, given what you said at WT:CS1 later, I already said I saw your viewpoint on it and you should just feel free to undo my revert [18]. I guess you didn't see that, but it's a little weird to get a hostile-ish note about some old revert from a few days ago. It's not like I have some magical power whereby a revert from me is permanent and unquestionable. :-) Anyway, I do see your point about documenting that parameter in a more general-editor-facing way, since there might after all be a reason for any given editor to do something with it. Just don't think it should be redundantly documented, when linking to existing documentation is fine. Even that I don't feel terribly strongly about, though. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Alternative to rp
editHi. In your archive Page-ception you have two paragraphs that outline ref= use as an alternative to Template:rp. Is that still current? Any chance there is a standalone description I can point out for others?
(I use rp primarily because it is much shorter. ref= has the same problem as sfn, additional points of failure. In <ref name=McNuttsIR2006/>{{rp|131}}</ref> vs <ref>[[#McNuttsIR2006|McNuts, I. R. (2006)]], p. 131.</ref>, the string "McNuts, I. R. (2006)]], p." isn't checked by reference failing.) Johnjbarton (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I wasn't able to parse what you meant by "isn't checked by reference failing" and that quoted string. I haven't made the "Page-ception" thread's stuff into a page of its own, and I'm more and more leaning toward
{{sfnp}}(which does not need a surrounding<ref>...</ref>), along with rare use of{{harvp}}inside<ref>...</ref>for cases that require additional annotations. The complicated|ref=Whatever 2023and<ref name="Whatever2023">[[#Whatever 2023|Whatever (2023)]] ...</ref>stuff I did at Tartan and some other articles can all be replaced by those two templates for a leaner and less error-prone result.Is there some kind of case you're having an issue with? I might be able to help work it out.
The problem (or a problem) with
{{rp}}is that it is a form of inline parenthetical referencing, which was deprecated by community consensus entirely in 2022. It separates part of the citation data from the citation and clogs up the text. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)- Context: over at Electromagnetic field, we're dealing with a situation where there are a couple standard textbooks that are cited repeatedly, each citation pointing to a different page range, and then a bunch of one-off citations for specific points. One way would be to use a bunch of {{rp}} tags. Another would be to have a separate list of {{cite book}} templates for the textbooks and then point to the specific page ranges with {{sfn}}s. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @XOR'easter and Johnjbarton: Oh, that one's easy-peasy: [19] (along with some other cleanup). Did that while carrying on a debate at WP:VPPOL in the other window. :-) This one didn't need any
|ref=twiddling. If it doesn't suit your needs, feel free to undo it of course (WP:CITEVAR and all 'at). Some folks prefer to have the multi-cited sources be under their own subheading after==References==, such as===Sources===or===Bibliography===, instead of between{{refbegin}}and{{refend}}(or even both at once). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for the fix (at least @XOR'easter will be happier ;-)
- I can't understand multi-cited in a separate section. Change the number of citations and fiddle with the sections. No thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- If it comes to it, just go back to the older format or pick a new one; I wasn't trying to "impose my will" by that change; it was basically a demo, and I half-expected it to be reverted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Another approach is WP:LDR, in which the multi-cited sources would be put inside a
<references>...</references>structure or an extended{{reflist|...}}tag, directly under==References==, each wrapped in<ref>...</ref>, but this strikes me as unnecessarily complicated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @XOR'easter and Johnjbarton: Oh, that one's easy-peasy: [19] (along with some other cleanup). Did that while carrying on a debate at WP:VPPOL in the other window. :-) This one didn't need any
- I don't want to relitigate the decision, but for me the exact problem with sfn is that separates the citation data (in References) from the citation (in Sources). Or in the case of Electromagnetic field, "Reference" contains some blue links that point to otherwise-formatted citations and some blue links that point outside the article. Looks sloppy.
- Now that I know that
sfnpcan be mixed with<ref>I'll try it. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)- Well, at least all the citation data is in the "References" section; this is clearly an improvement over (less sloppy than) having some of it there and some of it stuck in mid-sentence in the article (where for some readers it's probably not even clear what it is). At any rate, it is not possible to have all citation information on the same line, somewhere on the page, without entirely duplicating every
{{cite journal}}or whatever for every page at which it is cited. This really is about as good as it gets. The whole site seems to be moving this direction. PS: I used{{sfnp}}instead of{{sfn}}because it produces the same "(2018)" date output as the main citation templates;{{sfn}}produces "2018" without the consistent parentheses/round-brackets, for no good reason. People only use{{sfn}}because it has a shorter name and they think it's "the default" or what is "normal", but it should really not be used unless the article has a citation style that is consistently using "2018" format, which is only possible if they're all non-templated, manually formatted citations, which is pretty much no longer done in any article on the system except old junk no one's touched since the 2000s. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)- Is there any documentation other than Template:Sfnp? I'm sure it is completely obvious to you, but don't understand how to use it.
- In
{{sfnp | <last1*> | <last2> | <last3> | <last4> | <year*> | p= <page> | loc= <location> }}- there are an indefinite number of parameters (how many authors last names?) with ambiguous definitions (2002abcde?) ("de Broglie" vs "DeBroglie" etc). As I understand it these have to match a
{{cite}}template correct? All of the parameterslast1...yearare essentially an identifier forced to match a function of the cite template as far as I can tell. - (None of this is an issue with
refbecause thenameonly needs to match, the authors and date are only given one place. Seems to me that a solution where the point of citation entry is an arbitrary string and page number likerpbut which renders as the consensus desires would be nicer). Johnjbarton (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)- For others and future reference: the information about how to use
{{sfnp}}is in Template:Sfnp, in the "Possible issues" and "Implementation" sections. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- For others and future reference: the information about how to use
- Well, at least all the citation data is in the "References" section; this is clearly an improvement over (less sloppy than) having some of it there and some of it stuck in mid-sentence in the article (where for some readers it's probably not even clear what it is). At any rate, it is not possible to have all citation information on the same line, somewhere on the page, without entirely duplicating every
- Context: over at Electromagnetic field, we're dealing with a situation where there are a couple standard textbooks that are cited repeatedly, each citation pointing to a different page range, and then a bunch of one-off citations for specific points. One way would be to use a bunch of {{rp}} tags. Another would be to have a separate list of {{cite book}} templates for the textbooks and then point to the specific page ranges with {{sfn}}s. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- A filled-out "maximal" example would be something like:
{{sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|Le Fevre|2021|p=99|loc=footnote 7}}. - The
|loc=parameter is optional and can also be used in place of instead of along with|p=or its plural form|pp=(those two are mutually exclusive with regard to each other):{{sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|Le Fevre|2021|loc=errata sheet}} - The author surnames must match those (in numeric order) given in the CS1 template, e.g.:
{{Cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Amy B. |last2=Jones |first2=C. D. |last3=López-Garcia |first3=Carlos |last4=Le Fevre |first4=Jean-Paul |last5= ... |date=2021 ...}}to match the above example.- Spelling must be the same ("De Broglie" and "DeBroglie" and "de Broglie" are not equivalent).
- The surname matching also works with the generic CS2 equivalent template
{{Citation |last1=Chen |first1=Amy B. |last2=Jones |first2=C. D. |last3=López-Garcia |first3=Carlos |last4=Le Fevre |first4=Jean-Paul |last5= ... |date=2021 ...}}
If this is encountered in any article dominated by the more specific CS1 templates, it should be replaced with the appropriate one of those, per WP:CITESTYLE (and at this point, the vast majority of uses of CS2{{Citation}}are inconsistent injections of this sort into CS1 articles; the number of articles consistently templated in CS2 is decreasing all the time). - Surprisingly, it also works by extracting individual surnames out of the lossy and "reader-hateful"
|vauthors=mess, as long as it's actually coded in the proper format:{{Cite journal |vauthors=Chen AB, Jones CD, López-Garcia C, Le Fevre J-P, ... |date=2021 ...}}
This format, too, should be replaced on-sight with CS1's standard|last1=, etc., if|vauthors=is encountered in a article that is not consistetly using Vancouver-style citations, which is almost all of the cases at this point. (Few articles remain using Vancouver consistently, but editors who are fans of that style commonly go around wrongly injecting it into articles that do not use it, which is against WP:CITESTYLE). - It's also smart enough to treat
|editor1-last=, etc. as author names for this purpose if there is no|last1=, etc. If there are one or more specified authors, then any editor names are ignored (they do not concatenate onto the author(s) list). |last=,|author=, and|author1=(and the rare|author-last=,|author1-last=, and|author-last1=) are all aliases of|last1=, and so forth.|editor-last=,|editor=,|editor-last1=,|editor1=are all aliases of|editor1-last=, and so on.
- For multiple authors, the maximum is 4, not "an indefinite number". If you put in 5 or more, the template will throw a red error message. (This applies to
{{sfnp}},{{harvp}}, and all their variants.) - All the authors up to 4 must be included if specified in the full-length citation. For the above example, doing
{{sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|2021|p=32}}will not work because|Le Fevreis missing. - The CS1/CS2 special parmeter
|display-authors=etal, to output "et al." after the last specified author name, is not detected or supported. If the citation is{{cite book |last=Adebayo |first=Mohamed |display-authors=etal |date=1997 ...}}, this must be short-cited like{{sfnp|Adebayo|1991|p=23}}. - Dealing with two publications the same year by the same author(s) [or, technically, authors with the name surname]: This is where
|ref=comes in. If you have{{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ...}}and{{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ...}}, the solution is this:{{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023a}} }}and{{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023b}} }}, each short-cited as{{sfnp|Tāwhiri|2023a}}and{{snfp|Tāwhiri|2023b|p=42}}, respectively.- An alternative when there are two authors with the same surname is to be more specific about the author names:
{{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri, K.|2023}} }}and{{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri, M.|2023}} }}, each short-cited as{{sfnp|Tāwhiri, K.|2023}}and{{snfp|Tāwhiri, M.|2023|p=42}}, respectively. Doing both forms of disambiguation at once is not helpful. The name disambiguation is often helpful any time there are two authors by the same surname in the same article, even if the publication years do not collide. - The formerly recommended practice was to "operator overload" the long-form citation's
|year=parameter:{{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |year=2023a ...}}, which would work with{{sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023a}}, but it pollutes the long-form citation's date ouput with an invalid year string: Tāwhiri, Koa (2022a) The kluge to repair that was to do:{{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |year=2023a |date=2023...}}. But this is all just ridiculous awfulness, a case of the tail wagging the dog, the code forcing human editors to do confusing crap that abuses and juggles around template parameters for side purposes that don't match their citation-information intent. Worse, non-expert editors are apt to think that|year=2023a|date=2023is a typo and "fix" it to just|date=2023, thereby breaking short cites to that source. The|ref=parameter was introduced to make such easily broken hoop-jumping unnecessary. Instances of|, with or without the compensating|date=2023should be replaced with|date=2023and an{{sfnref}}(also often called by the alias{{harvid}}) inside a{{ref}}. NB: Using|date=instead of|year=is universally better, because|date=also handles bare years along with fuller dates, and editors who encounter a|year=2023but see a full date in the cited work when verifying it are apt to improve the citation by giving the full date;|year=is simply obsolete.
- An alternative when there are two authors with the same surname is to be more specific about the author names:
- Dealing with excessively long author names (usually organizational ones): Another job for
|ref=. If you have{{sfnref|...}}{{cite report |editor1-last=Yi |editor1-first=Xiu-Yīng |editor2=Committee on Reptile and Amphbian Nomenclature |date=2023 |publisher=World Herptological Society ...}}, you can add|ref=, and cite it as, e.g.,{{sfnref|Yi|CRAN|2015}}{{sfnp|Yi|CRAN|2015}}. - Vancouver-style citation templates (
{{Vcite journal}},{{Vcite journal}},{{Vcite book}}, etc.), which are rare but still occationally found, cannot be used at all with{{sfnp}}, etc., without adding|ref=to them. Yet another reason to not use that citation style.{{sfnref|...}} - Author names used by
{{sfnp}}and related templates have nothing to do with what is in<ref name="...">, only the surnames specified inside the citation template. If you have<ref name="DeBroglieMacDuff2019">{{cite web |last1=De Broglie |first1=Matt |last2=MacDuff Samuelson |first2=Jennifer B. |date=2019 ...}}, this would be short-cited like{{sfnp|De Broglie|MacDuff Samuelson|2019}}.- It's helpful for everyone's sanity to make them consistent and clear, e.g. use
<ref name="DeBroglie & MacDuff Samuelson 2019">. Note that the quotation marks are mandatory because of spaces and non-alphanumeric ASCII characters. The lazy practice of doing<ref name=DeBMacDS2019>with very simple ref names that do not contain spaces, punctuation, or other special characters is a terrible idea because someone else is reasonably likely to clean up such messy refs later and may forget the quotation marks and break the citation. Even doing<ref name=DeB-MacDS-2019>is technically invalid markup, though few editors realize it (MW seems to generally handle it okay, but this cannot be guaranteed in future versions because it's against the documented requirements of<ref>. Every time it is encountered,<ref name=foo>should be converted to<ref name="foo">(though as part of a more substantive edit per WP:COSMETICBOT).
- It's helpful for everyone's sanity to make them consistent and clear, e.g. use
Regarding "a solution where the point of citation entry is an arbitrary string and page number like rp but which renders as the consensus desires would be nicer", I'm not sure that's technically feasible to do within this wiki (but see note below about future features of <ref>). Something I could ponder on. If it were doable, I think we would have simply already replaced {{rp}}'s functionality in situ. There might in theory be some way to do something like Here is some article text.{{magicref|Yamamoto2001|p=27}}, where the {{magicref}} template (actually Lua module – this would certainly have to be done with a complicated Lua program, not with normal template code) matched Yamamoto2001 to a <ref name="Yamamoto2001">{{cite book |last=Yamamoto |first=Sumiko |date=2001 ...}}</ref> probably defined in a WP:LDR block at the bottom of the page, and then extracted the necessary details from the long-form citation in essentially the same way that {{sfnp}} does, and generated a similar short citation. This would be "brittle" in that if anyone renamed the <ref>'s name the {{magicref}} would break. It also has the issue that, as with {{snfp}}/{{harvp}}, it would be generally desirable to put the full-form citation at the bottom of the page. If there were community appetite for this, someone else would have to implement it, because I can't Lua-code may way out of a paper bag.
If this is really just about speed/ease of entry, an interim approach but basically a messy one is to just put the full-length citation into the article body at first citation of the source. The templates really don't care where they "live". It would not technically be invalid to do Here is some article text.<ref>{{cite book |last=Adebayo |first=Mohamed |display-authors=etal |date=1997 |page=123 ...}}</ref> ... This is more article text much later.{{sfnp|Adebayo|1997|pp=289–290}} It's still citing sources, and doing it inline, just not in an ideal way (because the long citation has a page number "fixed" in it, and it will be mixed into the main <references> or {{reflist}} output. If you did this at a new article, no one would likely care, but if you did it at an article with already-established citation style someone might object to it as a change in citation style, or at least change it to put the long cite at the bottom and without an permanently embedded page number.
Two further notes:
- I'm in the process of slowly writing up a
{{rp}}replacement guide, with user script tools for making it easier (the scripting requires a boatload of testing and tweaking because parsing XML mixed in with{{...}}markup using JavaScript and regex is very difficult, even when just parsing for a single<ref>tag and its limited parameters likename=andgroup=). - The ability to directly cite different pages in the same source within the
<ref>tag itself is (allegedly and very slowly) coming. The format will look like<ref extends="Miller 2019">Miller (2019), p. 42.</ref>, and such a short cite will have a clickable ↑ that links to the full citation (hopefully they'll pick another character, since in many cases the full cite might be below all the<references>/{{reflist}}output, not higher up inside that section). It's already in beta testing, and the preview documentation is at mw:Help:Cite#Citing different parts of the same source. It could be years before we get this functionality, though. MW development is slow, and deployment to here even slower. That feature was first documented as being in beta on 2 December 2019 [20]! FFS.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, that's excellent thanks! It's much better to have the exceptions as indented sub-bullets. You should publish this or edit the template doc; let me know if you want feedback.
- I probably use ProveIt for 90% of my references (mostly via DOI and ISBN), which is one force that pushes me towards in-line refs. Seems like tooling to adapt ProveIt to sfnp would include:
- ProveIt to continue to insert inline
- it may only see one section in the edit window so it can't insert in Sources/Reference/Notes
- Inline-inserted
citetemplates could be bot-moved to Sources/References/Notes.- After user edits, as part of one of the citation clean bots.
- Does this exist?
- ProveIt could offer sfnp insertion from cite sources parsed out of full article as alternative to cite insertion.
- This would reduce the matching-4-author-names drudgery.
- Does something like this exist?
- ProveIt to continue to insert inline
- Johnjbarton (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I just now saved an improved version to User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates; much easier to read and with some additional info. ProveIt isn't something I use; I'm an embarassingly manual dinosaur when it comes to adding citation data. I just copy-paste names and titles and DOIs and such from the source material and massage it into a cite template. Probably very inefficient. I don't know of any bot task to do the kind of shuffling you're talking about. It might be feasible to create one, but possibly a challenge to get it approved, because some "don't you dare touch citations in my FA" clown is likely to claim it somehow violates their perfect and careful "citation style", if they don't happen to be doing the full citations at the bottom of the page. See also Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Fine style point with "Citations" and "Works cited" subsections; how to even do them at page bottom varies. I fear this is and will remain a per-article, editor-judgement cleanup task. As for "ProveIt could offer sfnp insertion from cite sources parsed out of full article as alternative to cite insertion", that sounds practical/doable, but I don't know who develops that and how active they are or responsive to new feature requests. Regarding the matching-4-author-names drudgery: It is a little of a hassle the first time around, but once you've got one it can be copy-pasted for the other-page citations to the same source; just change the page number. Careful use of regex (if you're geeky enough for it) in the advanced search feature built into the default desktop editor or the similar one that is part of wikEd, can be used to speed up a lot of stuff when doing conversion/cleanup (but copy-paste the article into a text editor between regex operations; if you mess one up, ctrl-z (Mac: cmd-z) doesn't work). I also find it exceedingly helpful to use a multi-clipboard utility. Windows 10 onward has this already built in (use Cmd-V to see a list of recent pasteables). For Mac, I can recommend the third-party utility iClip, though there are several good competitors. Anwway, to stop rambling, and get back to the subject, another alternative to the matching-4-author-names drudgery is to do
{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |last2=Jones ... |date=2021 ... |ref={{sfnref|Smith et al.|2021}} }}then use{{sfnp|Smith et al.|2021|p=92}}. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I just now saved an improved version to User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates; much easier to read and with some additional info. ProveIt isn't something I use; I'm an embarassingly manual dinosaur when it comes to adding citation data. I just copy-paste names and titles and DOIs and such from the source material and massage it into a cite template. Probably very inefficient. I don't know of any bot task to do the kind of shuffling you're talking about. It might be feasible to create one, but possibly a challenge to get it approved, because some "don't you dare touch citations in my FA" clown is likely to claim it somehow violates their perfect and careful "citation style", if they don't happen to be doing the full citations at the bottom of the page. See also Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Fine style point with "Citations" and "Works cited" subsections; how to even do them at page bottom varies. I fear this is and will remain a per-article, editor-judgement cleanup task. As for "ProveIt could offer sfnp insertion from cite sources parsed out of full article as alternative to cite insertion", that sounds practical/doable, but I don't know who develops that and how active they are or responsive to new feature requests. Regarding the matching-4-author-names drudgery: It is a little of a hassle the first time around, but once you've got one it can be copy-pasted for the other-page citations to the same source; just change the page number. Careful use of regex (if you're geeky enough for it) in the advanced search feature built into the default desktop editor or the similar one that is part of wikEd, can be used to speed up a lot of stuff when doing conversion/cleanup (but copy-paste the article into a text editor between regex operations; if you mess one up, ctrl-z (Mac: cmd-z) doesn't work). I also find it exceedingly helpful to use a multi-clipboard utility. Windows 10 onward has this already built in (use Cmd-V to see a list of recent pasteables). For Mac, I can recommend the third-party utility iClip, though there are several good competitors. Anwway, to stop rambling, and get back to the subject, another alternative to the matching-4-author-names drudgery is to do
A request
editHowdy. I believe Dicklyon respects you greatly & not just because you support his 'lower case' stance. Maybe, if you were to 'suggest' directly to him, that he stop making such page moves while a related RFC is on going? he'll comply. I know it's not your responsibility to do that. But, it might help prevent Dicklyon from being reported by an editor (not me) to WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't realize it was him. Yes, I'll do that; he probably has e-mail enabled, and it might be better to get his attention that way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, no more gridiron-related moves or edits by me until the RfC resolves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, the RfC has nothing to do with the page moves and will not resolve in moving anything, that's for an RM to decide. You may be surprised that I agree with some of your lowercasings of these topics, and opening RM's on many of them will likely get you the results you want. Quite a few editors think the National Football League Draft and other NFL Draft pages stand separate from other draft pages as proper names, and it will take another RM to resolve that, an RM separate from the others (that's how Amakuru got "civil rights movement" lowercased, by mixing it up in an RM with other civil rights movement pages which had nothing to do with the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement so the issue was diluted, and I request that you or others don't try that tactic with the NFL Draft RM, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep repeating that "nothing to do with the page moves", and maybe someone will be convinced. But thanks for admitting that I'm at least sometimes right. I can't see any evidence for the NFL draft standing out as more "proper" in sources, but I do see a lot people repeating it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are often right, and you know that I think that, so I'm not "admitting" anything. But I do think that you are damaging the purpose of both WP:RM and the Village pump (policy) page by this divisive RfC, purposes which will not get straightened out easily if you happen to get your way in substituting one page for another. I don't know why you can't take the location opposition into account, just close the RfC, move the NFL Draft question to an RM at the NFL Draft page, and then ping everyone who has commented at the RfC to haul their main comments and evidence to that one. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- The "location opposition" is utterly contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policies, and the only reason it's happening is the American football wikiproject people know they can't control the outcome at a VPPOL RfC by swamping a process (RM) that nearly no one pays any attention to. VPPOL is huge and is the highest-consensus-level venue on the entire system. That a few people who don't care about football are piling on in a "screw our policies, always side with anything that sticks it to Dicklyon and the MoS" is unfortunate but predicable. Everyone has some nit-pick they don't like in MoS, and the most irritated of them always come out of the woodwork to wedge-drive in a "WP:OWN policy shouldn't exist, at least not for my pet topic" manner any chance they get. It doesn't mean there's a lack of consensus on any of these guideline or policy matters, it just means certain individuals will beat their dead horse straight to the center of the earth. Because it's a style matter and people are tired of tedious style debates, no action will ever be taken to put a stop to their antics, or even do anything about it when they engage in direct personal attacks, as they do against Dicklyon on a very frequent basis. If this were any other subject of any kind, this years-long tendentiousness and organized, programmatic incivility would never be tolerated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how much of that is meant for me, Dicklyon knows I respect (most) of his work here. The point made is that this adds another layer to a requested move and its appeal process. WP:RM, then to WP:MOVEREVIEW, then to WP:Village pump (policy). This major change makes Village pump (policy) the Supreme WikiCourt for requested moves, and if that's what you and Dicklyon intend to do I think it's fair to voice opposition without being unduly criticized. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no "change" of any kind here. It is not only perfectly fine to seek additional community input when consensus on a P&G question is [allegedly] uncertain, it is a very good idea. It is why WP:VPPOL exists. It is why WP:CENT exists. It is why we have things like WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and other noticeboards (other than the "punish someone" drama factories like ANI and AE), and even a tradition of opening "WP:Requests for comment/subject" stand-alone RfCs when we think they'll run long. If there was any merit to your fantasy that an RfC is invalid any time some other, lower-level process also pertains to that type of dispute, then none of these venues would or could exist. So, quote me the policy that makes RM mandatory. Quote me the policy that forbids broader VPPOL discussion of any particular kind of matter, especially titles in particular. Quote me the policy that says there is a WP:CONLEVEL and WP:NOTBURO exception when it comes to article titles.
VPPOL has always been the "once it is decided here, there is no longer a question to keep asking" venue (unless something changes later and WP:CCC might apply so the question should be asked again). We have no broader-input venue for assessing community consensus. The entire purpose of it is to get as broad as possible a range of input on a question of P&G interpretation, application, or change, especially when it may affect a substantial number of articles and/or the question is mired in a tug-of-war between two opposing viewpoints without sufficent input from middle-ground Wikipedians who are not partisans in the dispute. It is completely routine to use RfC or other processes to arrive at decisions that might otherwise be handled at RM, if RM is not a good process for it in that particular case. (Just one of numerous examples: templates are often renamed via multi-template TfDs in which various templates need to be deleted, some merged, and one or more renamed. See also other examples already posted in the VPPOL discussion. There are many more.) Your notion that the only possible way to arrive at article titling decisions is through an RM is simply patently false. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you are fine with any "no consensus" decision endorsed at WP:MOVEREVIEW being brought to Village pump (policy), even many months after the close? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Any time there is "no consensus" on something (and it is something people are going to continue squabbling about), a consensus does eventually need to be reached on it. There are numerous ways to do this, including waiting a long while and asking the same question again (e.g. repeating the RM in this sort of case); waiting or not waiting a while but asking a different question (e.g. propose a move to a different name than one of the ones about which consensus could not be reached); opening a stand-alone RfC on the matter (generally only it's a broad question, like a swath of articles, and in which there is some kind of fundamental dispute like "the rule does not apply to this topic" or "this is/isn't a proper name", not just a routine "my sources say this" vs. "my other sources say that" routine dispute about some specific article); opening an RfC of that sort on a guideline talk page; opening an RfC of that sort on a noticeboard that is pertinent; or, if it's a P&G matter, opening such an RfC at VPPOL. Using VPPOL would not be appropriate if it were not a P&G question. But in this case it is one.
Doing it "many months after the close" would actually be preferable, for the same reason we strongly discourage re-opening the same RM shortly after it closed with no consenus, or re-opening the same RfC shortly after it came to no consensus. No one [or, no one who should get their battleground wish granted!] wants to continue the same unproductive discussion that recently failed. What we do want to see is either quickly a different, refining discussion that may get past the original roadblock, or much later a re-asking of the same question to see if consensus can be reached among a different pool of presently-active editors. Or, for that matter, asking the variant question but later instead of soon. There is no bureaucracy to follow here.
PS: The reason MRV exists is because it is a (not the only) possible way of questioning a closure result, by asking for review of it by univolved admins (and doing so at WP:AN is still how this is usually done; the RM-related ones were just so frequent that the process was spun off to its own noticeboard like WP:DRV was). Its existence does not mean that the community in an even broader venue is somehow prohibited from examining the question, e.g. at VPPOL. Just think about the implications of that idea for a moment. Name any other decision-making of any kind in which admins get to make up their own "micro-consensus" decision, and the community cannot discuss much less override or move past it. (I'll save you the trouble: it does not exist, not even for hardcore things like indefinite block decisions. Hell, even WP:ARBPOL is subject to community consesus review and revision.) It's also important that MRV exists for one purpose and one only: to determine whether the closer erred in summarizing the RM debate they closed (in this case a decision of "no consensus"). It is expressly not for re-examining any (or adding additional) rationales for whether pages should move and to what names. But the VPPOL discussion is about exactly that (it is a "mega-RM" in a broader venue than RM makes possible), based on what P&G arguments and sourcing apply.
PPS: Yet another example of how other processes than RM are used to arrive at article titles: if an RfC about a rule change or a new rule comes to a clear consensus, then pages are simply manually moved (or RM/TRed if blocked by an edited redirect) to comply with it. That's how the species over-capitalization mess was cleaned up. It required no additional RMs at all (though in theory some could have come up if some particular instance had been disputed). It's especially interesting that: a) the lower-case decision was reached by RM in the first place, b) MRV upheld it as not a faulty close, and c) the community re-examined the question via RfC (based on the claim of upper-casing fans that the RM and MRV had an insufficient consensus level). It's an exactly parallel case, other than it trying to overturn a disliked consensus instead of trying to resolve a failure to come to consensus. You were around for all of that, but did not raise any such bogus "wrong venue" or "wrong process" claims. It's obvious why: because those trying to use the RfC to overturn an RM decision were trying to get an exception from MoS (and AT and NCCAPS), and you consistently support topical "rebellion", ignoring all policy and other considerations to champion the cause of subject- and wikiproject-specific special pleading for exceptions even when they provably cannot be justified by usage in sources independent of the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- A nice essay/summary (why don't you do more essays, lots of them can just be copy paste with a little editing). You were going good on the personal front until the end there. I didn't know about the species RfC and don't know which way I would have gone. When I agree with a lowercasing (you may or may not have noticed) I probably just won't comment or disagree. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Here I thought I put out more essays than I should already. I'm not trying to make this be "all about you". But if your last sentence means that because you feel put-upon by me that you are now going refuse to support MoS/NC/AT-complaint moves you agree with and are only going to oppose those you don't, I can't see that being constructive and it would just increase a perception of "always defending MoS defiance". But maybe you meant something completely different. Yes, I have noticed that you sometimes agree with a lower-casing; I don't think anyone's suggested you want to capitalize everything, just that you have a history of supporting capitalization when it is wanted (even in absence of independent source usage) by people focused on a particular topic (and relatedly of making or supporting claims that something "is a proper name" when there's insufficient sourcing to reach that conclusion). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't spite edit. Seems an odd way to go about Wikipedia. I meant that if I see a move request for lowercase that I agree with, more often than not others have already chimed in enough to pass that RM so I move on. Only so many hours in an hour. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I'm the same way about this. My RM time has been dwindling, especially as I take on bigger stuff. I have too many irons in the fire already. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't spite edit. Seems an odd way to go about Wikipedia. I meant that if I see a move request for lowercase that I agree with, more often than not others have already chimed in enough to pass that RM so I move on. Only so many hours in an hour. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Here I thought I put out more essays than I should already. I'm not trying to make this be "all about you". But if your last sentence means that because you feel put-upon by me that you are now going refuse to support MoS/NC/AT-complaint moves you agree with and are only going to oppose those you don't, I can't see that being constructive and it would just increase a perception of "always defending MoS defiance". But maybe you meant something completely different. Yes, I have noticed that you sometimes agree with a lower-casing; I don't think anyone's suggested you want to capitalize everything, just that you have a history of supporting capitalization when it is wanted (even in absence of independent source usage) by people focused on a particular topic (and relatedly of making or supporting claims that something "is a proper name" when there's insufficient sourcing to reach that conclusion). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- A nice essay/summary (why don't you do more essays, lots of them can just be copy paste with a little editing). You were going good on the personal front until the end there. I didn't know about the species RfC and don't know which way I would have gone. When I agree with a lowercasing (you may or may not have noticed) I probably just won't comment or disagree. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Any time there is "no consensus" on something (and it is something people are going to continue squabbling about), a consensus does eventually need to be reached on it. There are numerous ways to do this, including waiting a long while and asking the same question again (e.g. repeating the RM in this sort of case); waiting or not waiting a while but asking a different question (e.g. propose a move to a different name than one of the ones about which consensus could not be reached); opening a stand-alone RfC on the matter (generally only it's a broad question, like a swath of articles, and in which there is some kind of fundamental dispute like "the rule does not apply to this topic" or "this is/isn't a proper name", not just a routine "my sources say this" vs. "my other sources say that" routine dispute about some specific article); opening an RfC of that sort on a guideline talk page; opening an RfC of that sort on a noticeboard that is pertinent; or, if it's a P&G matter, opening such an RfC at VPPOL. Using VPPOL would not be appropriate if it were not a P&G question. But in this case it is one.
- Just to be clear, you are fine with any "no consensus" decision endorsed at WP:MOVEREVIEW being brought to Village pump (policy), even many months after the close? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no "change" of any kind here. It is not only perfectly fine to seek additional community input when consensus on a P&G question is [allegedly] uncertain, it is a very good idea. It is why WP:VPPOL exists. It is why WP:CENT exists. It is why we have things like WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, and other noticeboards (other than the "punish someone" drama factories like ANI and AE), and even a tradition of opening "WP:Requests for comment/subject" stand-alone RfCs when we think they'll run long. If there was any merit to your fantasy that an RfC is invalid any time some other, lower-level process also pertains to that type of dispute, then none of these venues would or could exist. So, quote me the policy that makes RM mandatory. Quote me the policy that forbids broader VPPOL discussion of any particular kind of matter, especially titles in particular. Quote me the policy that says there is a WP:CONLEVEL and WP:NOTBURO exception when it comes to article titles.
- I don't know how much of that is meant for me, Dicklyon knows I respect (most) of his work here. The point made is that this adds another layer to a requested move and its appeal process. WP:RM, then to WP:MOVEREVIEW, then to WP:Village pump (policy). This major change makes Village pump (policy) the Supreme WikiCourt for requested moves, and if that's what you and Dicklyon intend to do I think it's fair to voice opposition without being unduly criticized. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- The "location opposition" is utterly contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policies, and the only reason it's happening is the American football wikiproject people know they can't control the outcome at a VPPOL RfC by swamping a process (RM) that nearly no one pays any attention to. VPPOL is huge and is the highest-consensus-level venue on the entire system. That a few people who don't care about football are piling on in a "screw our policies, always side with anything that sticks it to Dicklyon and the MoS" is unfortunate but predicable. Everyone has some nit-pick they don't like in MoS, and the most irritated of them always come out of the woodwork to wedge-drive in a "WP:OWN policy shouldn't exist, at least not for my pet topic" manner any chance they get. It doesn't mean there's a lack of consensus on any of these guideline or policy matters, it just means certain individuals will beat their dead horse straight to the center of the earth. Because it's a style matter and people are tired of tedious style debates, no action will ever be taken to put a stop to their antics, or even do anything about it when they engage in direct personal attacks, as they do against Dicklyon on a very frequent basis. If this were any other subject of any kind, this years-long tendentiousness and organized, programmatic incivility would never be tolerated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are often right, and you know that I think that, so I'm not "admitting" anything. But I do think that you are damaging the purpose of both WP:RM and the Village pump (policy) page by this divisive RfC, purposes which will not get straightened out easily if you happen to get your way in substituting one page for another. I don't know why you can't take the location opposition into account, just close the RfC, move the NFL Draft question to an RM at the NFL Draft page, and then ping everyone who has commented at the RfC to haul their main comments and evidence to that one. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep repeating that "nothing to do with the page moves", and maybe someone will be convinced. But thanks for admitting that I'm at least sometimes right. I can't see any evidence for the NFL draft standing out as more "proper" in sources, but I do see a lot people repeating it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, the RfC has nothing to do with the page moves and will not resolve in moving anything, that's for an RM to decide. You may be surprised that I agree with some of your lowercasings of these topics, and opening RM's on many of them will likely get you the results you want. Quite a few editors think the National Football League Draft and other NFL Draft pages stand separate from other draft pages as proper names, and it will take another RM to resolve that, an RM separate from the others (that's how Amakuru got "civil rights movement" lowercased, by mixing it up in an RM with other civil rights movement pages which had nothing to do with the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement so the issue was diluted, and I request that you or others don't try that tactic with the NFL Draft RM, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, no more gridiron-related moves or edits by me until the RfC resolves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
"regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best"
editHi, thanks for your contributions on the discussion of "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best of all-time/his (or her) generation" in WT:MOS#MOS:PUFFERY. How is consensus on that page determined as there doesn't appear to have been any activity for over 10 days now? RevertBob (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @RevertBob: I don't think a clear consensus has emerged from that at all, and it would have a lot to do with the venue, because it's not really an MoS matter except in a very surface way, but primarily a mixture of WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns, with a little WP:V thrown in. I think this is going to have to be a carefully structured RfC, probably at WP:VPPOL. There were a number of issues raised, and a striking point was that some editors think it is better (when there's sourcing to back to up) to state outright "is/was one of the greatest whatever" than to hedge with "is considered one of the greatest whatever", and that is not what I anticipated. All the arguments presented so far need to be accounted for in drafting an RfC on this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
School outcomes
editHi, I have a weird request that basically involves asking for further context on a comment you wrote in this 2017 RfC. The reason I'm asking you in particular is because as far as I can tell, you are the only one who mentioned school districts at all in that discussion that is still an active editor here.
So, the the story starts with me coming across a school district article that likely would not meet GNG and looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. There it says: "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography).
I have no idea what the orgin of this consensus is (or if there ever was one). Anyways, I noticed that this kind of conflicted with what is actually stated at WP:GEOLAND. So I tried to create an RfC a few months ago. You can read it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#School districts and GEOLAND. A bunch of people thought my RfC was unclear or weren't sure if there was anything I was trying to change from the status quo... and I'd really just like to not be going in circles trying to understand what happened. As far as I can tell, this is the only RfC that's ever really had anything to do specifically with school districts. So I'd really appreciate it if you could prove me wrong? I'm not trying to change what happened, I just want to understand why this has been such a source of confusion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Hmm. Okay, we have:
- WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES:
"Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).
That's WP:NGEO for short. - The latter (at WP:GEOLAND specifically):
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.
Further down, WP:NGEO states:Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.
School districts are "legally recognized", being formally established governmental jurisdictions/bodies for a specific purpose. But I'm not personally sure that they really constitute "places" in the sense meant here, especially given the "census tracts" caveat that follows; a school district is much, much more like a census tract than it is like a village or even a named neighborhood. I would think that school districts would actually be approached as organizations (governmental bodies, specifically), and thus subject to WP:NORG (in fact, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES specifically saysThe current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are [WP:N and WP:NORG]
. School districts are "educational institutions" (they were legally instituted, and they entirely pertain to education). WP:NORG also explicitly covers schools, and it also covers divisions of municipal governments (as a subset of divisions of organizations), and all organizations generally, though it does not happen to mention school districts in particular. Pertinent material from NORG, by sectional shortcut: - WP:ORGSIG:
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.) If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists .... "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.
- WP:NONPROFIT:
Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.
It is very difficult to interpret this as not also applying to school districts, especially since the recommendation is to merge NN schools into articles on the local area (town, etc.) instead, not to the school district, though I would do the latter if the district were notable, as being a more pertinent and specific target. - Same section:
Local units of larger organizations: In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. If the parent article grows to the point where information needs to be split off to a new article, remember that when you split off an article about a local chapter, the local chapter itself must comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, without reference to the notability of the parent organization. Take care not to split off a section that would be considered non-notable on its own.
This was written clumsily with fraternities in mind, but it is not actually limite dto them, and there is no reason this would not apply also to school districts, which are highly local units of a larger city government organization. - Same section:
Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. ... Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization.
This clearly includes "division, departments, and other sub-units", and is not specific to any particular organization type, so would include municipal governments. - WP:NSCHOOL:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
This only mentions schools specifically, but the reasoning in it is not a new rule, it is an explication of existing rules and how they already apply, and they do already apply to school districts as well.
- WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES:
- I have no idea what the full history is of these pages, but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (and all the rest of WP:OUTCOMES) is an essay attempting to summarize result patterns and the reasons for them; it is mostly old and crufty and on this particular point seems to be circular reasoning: it has mad a claim that is not defensible, but people go along with it because that's what it says, the essay being (like WP:BRD and WP:AADD) treated almost as if it is a guideline. It is correct about schools, but is what amounts to a WP:POLICYFORK on districts, because it incorrectly cites WP:GEOLAND as the controlling guideline when it is necessaryily WP:NORG, since school districts are definitely organizations but rarely conceived of as places, and only for administrative purposes serve a jurisdictional function, thus are exactly parallel to the census tracts that are ruled out as "places".
In short, I think this is cause for another RfC, to remove the incorrect presumptive-notability claim from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and to have districts treated exactly the same as any other local subdivision of any (in this case governmental) organization. If that were repaired, some other advice would have to be tweaked, to suggest merging non-notable schools to notable school districts or to the city/town article in the absence of one of the former, because a lot of school districts (probably most of them) are non-notable and should themselves merge to cities/towns in a subsection under government.
The previous RfC appears to have flopped because it did not provide enough of the contextual material. What I would recommend is using the material above (neutralizing some of my editorial arguments) in a collapse box like
{{collapse top|left=y|Pertinent guideline and other material:}}...{{collapse bottom}}(each of those templates has to be on it own line). Then lay out an RfC proposition something like the following:
The essay WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES claims that school districts are presumptively notable as "populated places", on the grounds of WP:GEOLAND (in WP:NGEO). However, that guideline specifically excludes things like census tracts that are not typically considered places in the usual sense, and this could also apply to school districts. Meanwhile, school districts are organizations (divisions of larger municipal governments), much more than they are places, and appear to be subject to the guideline WP:NORG, as are schools and municipal governments themselves. (Specifically, WP:ORGSIG and WP:NONPROFIT in several parts appear directly applicable to districts, along with the intent behind WP:NSCHOOL.) The essay's wording appears to be a WP:POLICYFORK, which needs resolution one way or another.
Options for addressing the issue:
- Option 1: School districts are not presumptively notable, and are subject to WP:NORG. Update that guideline to mention them specifically, and revise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to agree.
- Option 2: School districts are presumptively notable, are subject to WP:GEOLAND, and are not subject to WP:NORG. Update both guidelines to state this.
- Option 3: Some other approach (please specify).
[Do the collapse box of guideline and essay quotations here.]
NB: A previous RfC on this was opened in December 2023, but closed as too unclearly worded to reach a consensus.
[Sig here]
[Then create a "Comments (school districts)" and a "Discussion (school districts)" subsection, disambiguated from other such sections on the VPPOL page.]- As a separate comment (since it's non-neutral), perhaps as part of your own !vote, maybe add: "The closer noted:
it is not necessary to have a school district article in order to capture all the schools in a given area: they could be captured under another geographical article, such as the local town or city
; and further that:common sense dictates that when a school district that otherwise does not merit an article more or less covers the same area as a town or city, or even a county or township, both the district & its schools should then be captured in that article.
"So, I guess that's doing most of the work already, though I don't think I want to "run" this one myself. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- You gave me a lot to think about. :) I don't have much experience with RfCs, so I really appreciate your detailed reasoning here. The only thing that jumps out to me immediately as a possible issue with the options is that I worry #3 would lead to arguing about minituae that would derail a new RfC. For example, there was a decent chunk of people in the previous RfC who opposed the concept of school districts even being required to meet GNG (acting like it was an SNG?) and arguments about the differences (if any) between school boards and school districts. The latter argument could lead to a stronger emphasis on GEOLAND if theoreotically there are school districts that are not under the jurisidiction of school boards (which are organizations). Do you think I should change the options any to reflect these concerns or do you think I'm overthinking it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Would have to sleep on it. School boards are kinda-sorta organizations, but are bodies of officials not entire organizations in the usual sense; they are basically like unto a board of directors, an advisory board, etc. That is, the distinction between a school district and a school board is illusory; some districts are administered by school boards and some are not (e.g. controlled directly by the town council, or by some other means). But I didn't pore over the original RfC, so I would have to read it all to look out for "gotchas" that the above draft did not account for, and that might be one of them. Though it also needs to be concise. PS: an "option 3: name your poison" (often resolving to "do nothing") might as well be included since people will make up their own options anyway and may be antagonistic about it if it wasn't already in there. Ultimately, people who want to try to split weird hairs will try to do it anyway. They'll definitely want to in some cases, because if option 1 prevailed, it would mean a lot of AfDs or at least hurried merges to avoid AfDs. This is an RfC I would expect a lot of FUD about. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the idea of a name your poison option is a good one, my train of thought was more maybe there'd be a strong enough recurring poison that would make a fourth option from the start worthwhile. I'm going to sleep on all this, too. Unfortunately, I work full time overnights, so the actual sleeping part will be a bit delayed. You don't need to worry about rushing to read it all, I'm just glad you're willing to give feedback at all. Get back to me anytime you're willing to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Would have to sleep on it. School boards are kinda-sorta organizations, but are bodies of officials not entire organizations in the usual sense; they are basically like unto a board of directors, an advisory board, etc. That is, the distinction between a school district and a school board is illusory; some districts are administered by school boards and some are not (e.g. controlled directly by the town council, or by some other means). But I didn't pore over the original RfC, so I would have to read it all to look out for "gotchas" that the above draft did not account for, and that might be one of them. Though it also needs to be concise. PS: an "option 3: name your poison" (often resolving to "do nothing") might as well be included since people will make up their own options anyway and may be antagonistic about it if it wasn't already in there. Ultimately, people who want to try to split weird hairs will try to do it anyway. They'll definitely want to in some cases, because if option 1 prevailed, it would mean a lot of AfDs or at least hurried merges to avoid AfDs. This is an RfC I would expect a lot of FUD about. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- You gave me a lot to think about. :) I don't have much experience with RfCs, so I really appreciate your detailed reasoning here. The only thing that jumps out to me immediately as a possible issue with the options is that I worry #3 would lead to arguing about minituae that would derail a new RfC. For example, there was a decent chunk of people in the previous RfC who opposed the concept of school districts even being required to meet GNG (acting like it was an SNG?) and arguments about the differences (if any) between school boards and school districts. The latter argument could lead to a stronger emphasis on GEOLAND if theoreotically there are school districts that are not under the jurisidiction of school boards (which are organizations). Do you think I should change the options any to reflect these concerns or do you think I'm overthinking it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Subantarctic vs. sub-antarctic
editDo you have a view on the hyphenation of "subantarctic" or is there anything I've missed in the MoS? List of Antarctic and subantarctic islands and Subantarctic are internally inconsistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Not a question MoS addresses, since hyphenation is always in flux (leaning over time to less hyphenation the more familiar a term has become, and there seem to be regional/dialectal differences on the habit). This seems to be nearly the same argument as anti-Semitism versus antisemitism, where people in favor of consistency and a particular kind of logic prefer the former, because Semite is a proper name, and this how such words are usually written (anti-American, pan-European, pro-Armenian, etc.), and others in favor of typographic simplicity and concision, which is a logic of another sort, want the latter. On that one, antisemitism seems to be dominating on Wikipedia despite that fact that it is down-casing the emedded Semite – which itself appears to be an anti-Semitic gesture of no longer treating their name as a proper one! This seems to be the case simply because the lowercased, run-together version is the most common spelling in the press [21]; this is the common-style fallacy, and WP WP isn't written in news style, which is obsessively driven by concision and expediency. The spelling anti-Semitism clearly dominates in books [22]. Usage in journals is very mixed [23] (first page of results is mostly the compressed form, but going through subsequent results pages shows about a 50:50 mixture). The sub-Antarctic case is complicated by the fact that various sources are apt to treat this a capitalized (Sub-Antarctic or Subantarctic) proper name of a region of the earth, like Western Hemisphere and Arctic and so on, so there are really four options: sub-Antarctic, Sub-Antarctic, subantarctic, and Subantarctic. There are other geographical disagreements like this, e.g. Transcaucasus (a.k.a. Transcaucasia, now South Caucasus) has also been written by sources as Trans-Caucausus and Trans-Caucasia (capitalized as a place name; I'm not seeing use of trans-Caucasia, transcaucasia, etc.). For your case, it's probably a matter to ask in an RfC about what spelling to use across our articles, or in an RM to just move the article and then impose spelling consistency in text afterward. Some links: [24][25][26] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:CONVENUE
edit@Thebiguglyalien, Snow Rise, and Levivich:
I'd forgotten about it, but what was discussed at some length at "User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 22#Advice going forward on WikiProject Years" shouldn't be forgotten, and is worth developing further. Though that discussion was most immediately about WP:YEARS and "their" articles, WP:ITN, and a few other specifics, what Snow Rise said there (in part paraphrasing Levivich) resonantes strongly and is broadly applicable: [T]hese are en.Wikipedia articles at the end of the day, and whatever their unique format and considerations, they are governed by the same content policies as any other user-facing content .... [T]he entire reason we have an objective, WEIGHT-based standard is to prevent the idiosyncratic perceptions of the "importance" of a topic ... to prevent not just bias in our content, but also the introduction of insurmountable discord into the process of consensus building when such a subjective standard [as what a topical wikiproject might subjectively prefer] is utilized. ... [T]his is primarily a behavioural issue. ... I am certain that any solution has to be based on our existing RS/WEIGHT standards. It's simply the only approach that can be adopted on this project without the gears constantly locking up beyond our ability to repair. [Failure to apply P&G across topics evenly is] untethering our process from an objective standard and inviting our editors to do what they presently are disallowed from doing: basing content on their own assessments of what is actually "important" ....
.
All of that is central to the whole problem of "topical rebellions" against our WP:P&G (which rapidly spill into throwing WP:CIV and WP:NPA out the window), and some other walled-garden issues (ITN, DYK, FAC, and several others come to mind). These policy observations apply well beyond the core content policies themselves, including to guidelines on titles, style questions, notabilty, and other considerations, except where a subject has its own guideline-level (not WP:PROJPAGE essay) naming conventions page, MoS page, subject notability guideline or whatever (and some of those need re-examination and revision; much of their text dates to the 2000s, and is often problematic, especially with regard to topics that don't get a lot of editorial attention; but that'll be an issue for another time). The matter recently got raised again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#General Sanctions (Darts), a very typical case where a niche subject with long-term "this is our topic" editors collide with other editors and it turns into a long-term battleground.
As I recall from the original discussion, the first idea was to revise WP:PROJPAGE, but it's not checked all that often, is not a policy, and is aimed only at wikiprojects' output, so it doesn't address topical PoV-pushing and walled-garden behavior by factions or tagteams that are not wikiprojects, nor individuals with this kind of bent. So, the idea after that was to revise WP:CONLEVEL with a WP:CONVENUE add-on (usurping the WP:CONVENUE shortcut from my essay, which may be useful for some points/wording, along with WP:PROJPAGE). Thebiguglyalien drafted something in a sandbox here, and Snow Rise had some quibbles with it (one of which got mentioned at the thread linked up top), but everyone got busy and it fell by the wayside. For my part, I think much of that draft is correct, but it over-states a few things, and glosses over a few others, and is about 10× too long; the whole concept needs to be compressed into a couple of concise sentences, a single paragraph; the community would not be willing to accept a large and complex policy addition, per the WP:CREEP principle.
I'm not certain how to proceed, but think this should proceed, even if takes some time and work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said at the darts discussion, this is still something I think should happen. And I agree that it would be ideal if we could get any potential changes down to a single paragraph or shorter. And I'm just spitballing now, but I also remember suggesting a year ago that WikiProject talk pages could have a banner to the effect of "This page serves as a noticeboard for the topic and for discussion about the project itself. If you want to discuss changes to the articles in this topic, do so at their respective talk pages or at the WP:Village Pump." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Something like that might be a good idea, other than suggesting VP for that (it is not for discussion of changes at particular articles). But we'd probably need to get the policy adjusted first, so that such wikiproject-talk-templating was per that policy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi SMc, thanks for the ping. My 2c: I'd be hesitant about introducing a new major concept (CONVENUE) in addition to the existing concept (CONLEVEL) at the policy level, because the fewer concepts, the conceptually simpler the policy, the better.
- I also think the same result could be achieved just by making a change to the existing policy section at WP:CONLEVEL. CONLEVEL is also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but the actual policy doesn't contain the phrases "local consensus" or "global consensus." It should.
- The second paragraph of CONLEVEL should be moved in its entirety to WP:PGCHANGE, leaving room for a new 2nd para that explained more explicitly the idea of levels of consensus.
- The new 2nd para should explain the relationship between "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time" and participation, venue, advertisement (it should explain the importance of {RFC} and FRS, CENT and VPP/VPR). Levivich (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good feedback. Sounds like a reasonable approach, but I've about run out of energy for the day. Will ponder upon it soon. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- My concern is that, ultimately, some level of cultural change will have to accompany a policy change. Most editors generally agree that global consensus beats local consensus, but being willing to do something about it is another matter. ANI regularly sees cases where editors are causing disruption but it's overlooked because it's "not that big of a deal" or "this is overblown", and CONLEVEL seems like exactly the sort of issue that would fall into that trap. It's not until we get into a WP:DARTS type situation where several editors without much "social capital" are being incredibly uncivil that it gets any sort of attention. We can get the wording changed, and that's all well and good, but I worry that things would keep on going the way they have been other than having one more all caps link to use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this bears some thinking on. Getting community culture to shift is always a challenge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- To get my brain moving on this, I reread the discussions and wrote up a quick outline of the points that we considered:
no discrete group of editors gets to make and enforce rules outside of established process, and thereby sidestep the normal community vetting of proposed guidelines
– Snow Rise's summary of what we want to accomplish- All articles are subject to WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV, and WP:OR regardless of topical considerations. Editors who frequent one topic cannot decide that "their" articles follow separate standards.
- Something's importance or significance should be determined by its coverage in sources, not by the evaluation of one or more editors. Editors must not create their own metrics or rules to determine the significance of a topic.
- The media and other sources being biased for/against covering certain topics is not a valid argument for giving them more/less weight.
- WikiProjects may not dictate content or create any other rules that must be followed. They operate in a purely advisory capacity. There is no such thing as "WikiProject consensus".
- Groups of editors, including WikiProjects, are still subject to WP:OWN. WikiProjects and their members do not own any articles or any other pages.
- Consensus on one article does not apply to another article. The talk page of one article cannot be used to dictate rules for a series of articles.
- Suggested changes to multiple articles should be widely advertised to the entire community, not confined to one WikiProject or group of editors.
- The number of editors supporting a local consensus and the length of time it has stood do not give it additional weight.
- This is already expected practice and we are simply codifying it. ARBCOM has also made rulings to this effect (I don't know which cases off the top of my head).
- Ideally we can weed this down and condense the main ideas into a few sentences that would fit somewhere under WP:DETCON. Also pinging Snow Rise and Levivich. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ehhhhxcellent as Mr. Burns would say. Thanks for the effort to summarize that long thread, and produce a good summary, and I've taken the liberty of numbering the points for easier reference. I can already think of some ways to condense and wordsmith on it a bit (e.g. merge 5 and 6 and the second half of 2), but will hold off and think on it longer. One thing that strikes me is that the first half of 2, and 3 and 4 are really WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR concerns, and better addressed elsewhere. They're very good nutshell ecapsulation of principles, but not really directly germane to CONLEVEL and "CONVENUE" matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey all, sorry for my being slow to join the discussion. I was vaguely aware of it, but late January and early February were among the most difficult weeks of my entire life, with some very serious emergencies and personal loss, and I just didn't have the bandwidth/ability to so much as pipe up.
- Ehhhhxcellent as Mr. Burns would say. Thanks for the effort to summarize that long thread, and produce a good summary, and I've taken the liberty of numbering the points for easier reference. I can already think of some ways to condense and wordsmith on it a bit (e.g. merge 5 and 6 and the second half of 2), but will hold off and think on it longer. One thing that strikes me is that the first half of 2, and 3 and 4 are really WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR concerns, and better addressed elsewhere. They're very good nutshell ecapsulation of principles, but not really directly germane to CONLEVEL and "CONVENUE" matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- To get my brain moving on this, I reread the discussions and wrote up a quick outline of the points that we considered:
- Yes, this bears some thinking on. Getting community culture to shift is always a challenge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- My concern is that, ultimately, some level of cultural change will have to accompany a policy change. Most editors generally agree that global consensus beats local consensus, but being willing to do something about it is another matter. ANI regularly sees cases where editors are causing disruption but it's overlooked because it's "not that big of a deal" or "this is overblown", and CONLEVEL seems like exactly the sort of issue that would fall into that trap. It's not until we get into a WP:DARTS type situation where several editors without much "social capital" are being incredibly uncivil that it gets any sort of attention. We can get the wording changed, and that's all well and good, but I worry that things would keep on going the way they have been other than having one more all caps link to use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good feedback. Sounds like a reasonable approach, but I've about run out of energy for the day. Will ponder upon it soon. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That said, and as you know, I feel this is an issue that's time has well come. Moving what is essentially well-established policy regarding the proper methodology for forming multi-article consensus (that was merely codified in a peculiar place because of the idiosyncrasies of how community consensus developed) to a more appropriate namespace would have immense benefit for short-circuiting a lot of needless conflict that otherwise arises due to a lack of understanding of the limitations of WikiProjects (and small cohorts with their own preferred rules generally). Those issues are unambiguously a direct result of the established limitations not being properly elaborated on in the major policies on consensus, leading to these principles being underappreciated--sometimes even by fairly experienced and conscientious community members.
- I know that all I'm doing here is stating the obvious and preaching to the choir, but it's my way of saying my silence since TBUA revived this issue is not from lack of support or appreciation. I've reviewed the above summary by TBUA, and find it essentially accurate, and any little caveats that I have about creative ways members of WikiProjects have sought to do their due diligence in terms of advertising discussions to the broader community while still holding the discussions at WikiProjects and attempting to have the results operate as binding consensus on multiple articles, we can discuss as we get along and try to incorporate into the new proposed wording. I personally am somewhat agnostic on the location of the new policy verbiage, but lean a little towards their being their own 'CONVENUE' section within DETCON. But that too we can work out as we go. I'll drop a more substantial bit of feedback on the more particularized points in a few days, as soon as I am able. Thanks for picking up the ball and running with this, TBUA. SnowRise let's rap 22:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- +1, I basically agree with everything Snow said, especially thanks TBUA for advancing this. (Sorry to hear about the loss and rough patch, hope spring will bring you some relief.) Levivich (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. I think we are onto something. I just noticed User:Scribolt/Levels of consensus which is at least closely adjacent to some of the things we've been (slowly) talking about. Scribolt, care to join in? The summary above is probably good enough to go through (the original discussion was quite long). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I think I see things a little differently in some areas, maybe some of these (slightly disjointed) thoughts might help. I should point out that I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to achieve.
- Philosophically, I'm not sure that I agree that an editing consensus impacting multiple articles that should be "respected", if not enforced, cannot develop outside of P&G pages or central noticeboards, which is where a lot of the numbered points above seems to imply. For me, the level of consensus something has (no matter what namespace it occurred in) is a product of participation x correct advertisement x correct venue x how well the scope of discussion applies to the new situation. You can overcome a deficit in one element if the others are in place and are high.
- This is very much in line with the first part of Levivich's comment earlier in this thread, but for me trying to define local vs global consensus is a bit of a dead end. You're never going to find a definition that everyone will get behind and for me it's much more valuable to make this a relative term (i.e. the consensus for doing X is bigger than doing Y, because we consider A, B & C when thinking about how much consensus something has). You're never going convince many (including me) that there is a genuinely "global" consensus for doing almost anything.
- The "respected" if not "enforced" piece is relevant when something is not well covered in existing P&G. Pointing out to an editor that there was a discussion before on the topic at another article or WikiProject is legitimate and the editor can choose whether to go with it or seek a new and greater consensus (and in these cases the new consensus formed, whether at the article itself, central noticeboard, or even by simply making and justifying their edit) would almost certainly be greater than the original.
- In terms of mechanics of multi-page consensus, I'm not sure that something like this was such an awful way of working through things, would we really want every discussion like this to occur on a centralized notice board or P&G page? It might be worth distinguishing between discussions with open ended application vs those with a defined scope.
- In terms of any language, while I agree that P&G by definition are likely to represent high levels of community consensus, this is clearly more applicable for some pages than others, so please consider the policy principles that define P&G as follow editing best practices and not the other way around.
- Not sure if that was in any way helpful, but I'm glad at least someone read my essay. Scribolt (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is good food for thought. "would we really want every discussion like this to occur on a centralized notice board or P&G page?" Probably not, and the idea of establishing to a consensus to do/not do something at a particular article is laced throughout our P&G. However, this applies when the question is legitimately open, when an option is available. The problem arises when some topically-focused editors decide to defy a broad consensus (most frequently MOS:CAPS, but any guideline or policy of any kind could be at issue in a particular case) that already covers the question hand, to instead impose a divergent approach in "their" topic, and may become entrenched about it, hostile to anyone who tries to change it to the P&G-compliant form, or even expresses the idea that this should happen. This is a really bad "topical balkanization" habit with a lot of long-term disruption potential. There are numerous examples of this, that range all over the place, from weak sourcing "standards" being applied by camps of editors in various controverial topics that have resulted into ArbCom-imposed regulation; to a particular wikiproject deciding on its own to repurpose a biographical infobox parameter to contain information that doesn't belong there, and imposing this across many thousands of articles, simply because it suits the preferences of a small number of editors devoted to a certain sort of bio article. We need a generalized approach for dealing with such issues. In theory, just WP:CONLEVEL policy should have been enough, but it has proved ineffective at curtailing this sort of thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree with the sentiment. But when thinking about what to do, I think it's worth remembering that there's Policy, Guidelines and guidelines. Purely looking at this in terms of consensus is probably the wrong approach. The vast majority of actual policy pages are widely watched. Something like MOS:CAPS is also well stewarded, and it's fair to say it's current state has enjoyed enough oversight to mean that doing something differently should really mean updating the guideline or discussing more centrally. How much community consensus would you say MOS:PK actually enjoys? Based in pagewatchers and edits, I'd say you wouldn't need a hugely attended or advertised discussion elsewhere to have difficulty saying that MOS:PK is the consensus between a limited group of editors. Now, you could say that because it has guideline status it automatically applies, but then the argument becomes that if a rule exists, then it's followed until changed, which is a strengthening of the status of guidelines.
- A possible approach would be to a) provide some better tools so that someone uninvolved can asses the strength of a consensus, and b) do something in the behavioural and or RFC closing guidance area to embed this Scribolt (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's not a MOS:PK; if you mean something like MOS:PAK, yes there are lots of narrowly topical MoS, NC, and N "guidelines" that were simply declared to be guidelines by a handful of authors back in the wild-and-wooly 2000s when people were just inventing "guidelines" and even "policies" out of nowhere. But these generally are not of much if any concern. Most have not been substantively edited in a decade, and either are innocuous (don't conflict with other P&G or do anything else stupid) and are actually followed (in which case they are fine as guidelines); are innocuous but not followed, for being too out-of-date with what the community's actual practice is (in which case they should be marked
{{Historical}}, or updated to ecapsulate actual current best practice in the topic); or they are not innocuous and contain conflicts with other P&G, in which case they need to be repaired (whether actively followed or not), and that might entail RfCs and even a new WP:PROPOSAL process (a result of which might be{{Rejected}}). There are also a lot of WP:PROJPAGE essays, in which various wikiproject try to assert style (most often section layout) preferences, but these are mostly ignored. Where they are not and also are not problematic, they should be make into MoS subpages instead of wikiproject style-advice essays.The vast majority of the "defy a guideline I don't like" disruption is against some particular provision in a central guideline, like MOS:CAPS and its WP:NCCAPS derivative, or sometimes worse, like ignoring aspects of core content policy to push agendas in particular topics (WWII/Nazis/Jews in Eastern Europe; various fringe or religion subjects; a number hot-button topics in Western and especially American politics; etc.). The topical "guidelines" like MOS:PAK and MOS:COMICS and WP:NCPARTY and WP:NEVENTS are rarely the source of the problem.
But, sure, various pages with
{{Guideline}}on them probably need community review for updating (and often paring) or even for demotion to essays or{{Historical}}, especially when they represent hardly any input from anyone and/or they are out-of-step with consensus practice. It's not really clear how to go about this the best way. Generally it's likely to be a matter of WP:VPPOL referenda, but is apt to cause significant drama, especially if the "guideline" in question is the product of a wikiproject and they happen to like it. One such demotion was "WP:Manual of Style/Computing", which was principally authored by only two or three editors, and was basically a pile of opinated WP:CREEP that didn't serve an encyclopedia-building need. Contrast with WP:Manual of Style/Computer science which dated to the same era (as a PROJPAGE) and recently passed a PROPOSAL to become part of MoS; that was a page with significantly more community input, by people who knew better what they were talking about, to address actual encyc.-writing needs instead of impose personal-preference style pecadilloes, and subject to considerable revision after community input. Big difference. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's not a MOS:PK; if you mean something like MOS:PAK, yes there are lots of narrowly topical MoS, NC, and N "guidelines" that were simply declared to be guidelines by a handful of authors back in the wild-and-wooly 2000s when people were just inventing "guidelines" and even "policies" out of nowhere. But these generally are not of much if any concern. Most have not been substantively edited in a decade, and either are innocuous (don't conflict with other P&G or do anything else stupid) and are actually followed (in which case they are fine as guidelines); are innocuous but not followed, for being too out-of-date with what the community's actual practice is (in which case they should be marked
- It is good food for thought. "would we really want every discussion like this to occur on a centralized notice board or P&G page?" Probably not, and the idea of establishing to a consensus to do/not do something at a particular article is laced throughout our P&G. However, this applies when the question is legitimately open, when an option is available. The problem arises when some topically-focused editors decide to defy a broad consensus (most frequently MOS:CAPS, but any guideline or policy of any kind could be at issue in a particular case) that already covers the question hand, to instead impose a divergent approach in "their" topic, and may become entrenched about it, hostile to anyone who tries to change it to the P&G-compliant form, or even expresses the idea that this should happen. This is a really bad "topical balkanization" habit with a lot of long-term disruption potential. There are numerous examples of this, that range all over the place, from weak sourcing "standards" being applied by camps of editors in various controverial topics that have resulted into ArbCom-imposed regulation; to a particular wikiproject deciding on its own to repurpose a biographical infobox parameter to contain information that doesn't belong there, and imposing this across many thousands of articles, simply because it suits the preferences of a small number of editors devoted to a certain sort of bio article. We need a generalized approach for dealing with such issues. In theory, just WP:CONLEVEL policy should have been enough, but it has proved ineffective at curtailing this sort of thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I think I see things a little differently in some areas, maybe some of these (slightly disjointed) thoughts might help. I should point out that I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to achieve.
- Yep. I think we are onto something. I just noticed User:Scribolt/Levels of consensus which is at least closely adjacent to some of the things we've been (slowly) talking about. Scribolt, care to join in? The summary above is probably good enough to go through (the original discussion was quite long). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- +1, I basically agree with everything Snow said, especially thanks TBUA for advancing this. (Sorry to hear about the loss and rough patch, hope spring will bring you some relief.) Levivich (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know that all I'm doing here is stating the obvious and preaching to the choir, but it's my way of saying my silence since TBUA revived this issue is not from lack of support or appreciation. I've reviewed the above summary by TBUA, and find it essentially accurate, and any little caveats that I have about creative ways members of WikiProjects have sought to do their due diligence in terms of advertising discussions to the broader community while still holding the discussions at WikiProjects and attempting to have the results operate as binding consensus on multiple articles, we can discuss as we get along and try to incorporate into the new proposed wording. I personally am somewhat agnostic on the location of the new policy verbiage, but lean a little towards their being their own 'CONVENUE' section within DETCON. But that too we can work out as we go. I'll drop a more substantial bit of feedback on the more particularized points in a few days, as soon as I am able. Thanks for picking up the ball and running with this, TBUA. SnowRise let's rap 22:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Château
edit
Regarding your edit here, don't you think "château" is a well assimilated loanword? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Disney move
editWhy did you want the Walt Disney Company to move to Disney in the first place? While it is a common name, it is not the only important Disney. You know Walt Disney himself, right? Please read the guidelines, think, and learn from your actions. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @GabrielPenn4223: Read the RM proposal. The company is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (that is, the vast majority of reliable-source usages of just "Disney" by itself are in reference to the company, not to any other subjects), and it is the WP:COMMONNAME of the company (that is, the vast majority of RS references to the company are simply as "Disney" not as a longer term). This case is not different in any way from any other routine disambiguation case. The fact that Walt Disney himself might be referred to on second mention as simply "Disney" in a biographical context is completely immaterial. Hatnotes exist for a reason, and
{{About|the company|the company founder|Walt Disney}}would resolve any navigational issue. There's a weird fandom-driven "local consensus" happening at that page to defy WP:AT policy and the WP:DAB guideline. It's silly (most especially since Disney still redirects straight to the company despite that recent discussion). This case not any different from Heinz. The company, H. J. Heinz Company, formerly Heinz Noble & Company, now a subsidiary and brand of larger company Kraft Heinz after a 2015 merger, is the PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. The COMMONNAME of the company-cum-brand is simply Heinz, and the founder, Henry J. Heinz is notable and would be referred to on second mention in a biographical context simply as "Heinz". Heinz doesn't even have a disambiguation hatnote pointing to him, though it could have one; it was probably thought unnecessary since he is mentioned and linked in the first line of the article. If you went and proposed moving Heinz to H. J. Heinz Company, Heinz (company), Heinz (brand) or some other name, you'd be WP:SNOW opposed because such a name would not fit WT:AT and WP:DAB requirements (see also Talk:Heinz/Archives/2015#Requested move 26 March 2015). The difference is that Heinz, unlike Disney, doesn't have a walled-garden fanbase who want things a particular way to suit their WP:ILIKEIT preferences instead of following our WP:P&G like every other subject does. Some day the company article will be at Disney where it belongs, though I'll leave it to someone else to get that done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- It should not. Disney should be a DAB page in my opinion. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DAB (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for that matter). We don't just get to make up our own opinions to suit our personal preferences on such matters; they are governed by policies and guidelines (pretty much explicity to prevent particular popular topics being given special treatment by their fans). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NATDIS, WP:NATURAL read these as an user said on the RM. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Those both go to the same place, so you seem to be the one not reading the material. In particular, read the entire WP:TITLEDAB section in which this is found: nothing in there is invoked unless disambiguation becomes necessary, and it is by definition not necessary for a page if it is the PRIMARYTOPIC; that's what PRIMARYTOPIC even means. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Users could also be looking for not limited to: Walt Disney himself as I stated, Disney theme parks, Disney Channel, Disney Studios etc.! This seems to be the primary topic over Disney by usage but not globally. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's why we have Disney (disambiguation). It's also why we have Heinz (disambiguation). There is nothing different about these cases, other than some Disney fans personally wanting things a certain way to suit their PoV preferences. Disney theme parks, Disney Channel, Disney Studios, etc., are also services, products, or subsidiaries of the Disney corporation. I fear you simply do not understand how WP article titling and disambiguation operate; your arguments strongly suggest this. And you have zero RS in support of your notion that globally "Disney" by itself has a primary referent different from the primary referent in the US (i.e., the Disney corporation, in both cases). I have no idea why you've come to my talk page to argue in circles about this stuff, but it is not constructive, and Wikipedia is not a debate forum. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Actually, I now see that you've only been here three weeks; I thought you were a long-term editor already, so that might have come off as unreasonably dismissive, given how long it takes to absorb all of WP's complicated rules and procedures. Article titling on Wikipedia is complex, but the nutshell is that we use the most common name for a subject by default, and disambiguate it only when necessary (on a per-page basis, not on an "everything ever called by this name" basis, and only to the extent necessary). We do not use a longer name than necessary. If something is overwhelmingly the primary topic for a name, it is not disambiguated, and takes that short and recognizable name as the article title, with the disambiguation page being at, e.g., Disney (disambiguation), and other topics by that name being disambiguated one way or another. That DAB page would move to the bare Disney name, without "(disambiguation)", if and only if no primary topic could be determined for "Disney"; but of course there is an overwhelmingly primary topic for that name, the corporation. To get up-to-speed on this stuff, start reading WT:AT from top to bottom, then read WP:DAB and then MOS:DAB. There are also some topical naming conventions pages at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions; the pertinent one here is WP:NCCORP (though a sentence or two in it is subject to an active dispute right now, as being contradictory to policy and several other guidlines). Anyway, Walt Disney Company (and some would move it to The Walt Disney Company to even better agree with the primary-source preference, not being at Disney is an abberation not a norm, and it will not last indefinitely. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's why we have Disney (disambiguation). It's also why we have Heinz (disambiguation). There is nothing different about these cases, other than some Disney fans personally wanting things a certain way to suit their PoV preferences. Disney theme parks, Disney Channel, Disney Studios, etc., are also services, products, or subsidiaries of the Disney corporation. I fear you simply do not understand how WP article titling and disambiguation operate; your arguments strongly suggest this. And you have zero RS in support of your notion that globally "Disney" by itself has a primary referent different from the primary referent in the US (i.e., the Disney corporation, in both cases). I have no idea why you've come to my talk page to argue in circles about this stuff, but it is not constructive, and Wikipedia is not a debate forum. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Users could also be looking for not limited to: Walt Disney himself as I stated, Disney theme parks, Disney Channel, Disney Studios etc.! This seems to be the primary topic over Disney by usage but not globally. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Those both go to the same place, so you seem to be the one not reading the material. In particular, read the entire WP:TITLEDAB section in which this is found: nothing in there is invoked unless disambiguation becomes necessary, and it is by definition not necessary for a page if it is the PRIMARYTOPIC; that's what PRIMARYTOPIC even means. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NATDIS, WP:NATURAL read these as an user said on the RM. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DAB (and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for that matter). We don't just get to make up our own opinions to suit our personal preferences on such matters; they are governed by policies and guidelines (pretty much explicity to prevent particular popular topics being given special treatment by their fans). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- It should not. Disney should be a DAB page in my opinion. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 60
edit
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
- Three new partners
- Google Scholar integration
- How to track partner suggestions
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
January music
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving articles in January! I remember Ewa Podleś on the Main page, and have - believe it or not - two musical DYK. Shalom chaverim. On vacation, with something for your sweet tooth --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Today: the performance of Anna Nekhames --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and a few new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Language preservation organisations has been nominated for deletion
edit
Notification: Feedback request service is down
editHello, SMcCandlish
You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Must
editWell, we don't or shouldn't be using "must" anywhere in MoS or any other guideline unless describing a policy or technical requirement.
@SMcCandlish, this is wrong. Here's a list of five statements in the main MOS page that use the word must. Notice the absence of policy and technical requirements:
- Infoboxes, images, and related content in the lead section must be right-aligned.
- The heading must be on its own line, with one blank line just before it.
- If a sentence includes subsidiary material enclosed in square or round brackets, it must still carry terminal punctuation after those brackets, regardless of any punctuation within the brackets.
- Where such a word or phrase occurs mid-sentence, new terminal punctuation (usually a period) must be added at the end.
- Names not originally written in one of the Latin-script alphabets (written for example in Greek, Cyrillic, or Chinese scripts) must be given a romanized form for use in English.
Do you see any here that ought to be presented as mere "should" statements – like, you "should" use proper punctuation at the end of a sentence, but it's sometimes okay if you don't? I don't.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content says:
- Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms or dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Even in guidelines, help pages, and other non-policy pages, do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something.
If something is actually required, even if it is "only" required by the rules of proper English grammar, then it should be indicated as a "must", not a "should". It is unfair and needlessly confusing to tell editors that something merely should be done this way when we are actually requiring it. There has never been a rule relegating the use of words like must to pages that say "policy" in a box at the top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I said "shouldn't" for a reason. All of those things need to be revised. 1. "in the lead section are always right-aligned" (we don't appear to have any exceptions, and if one were found in some single-editor stub, other editors would fix it, so this is true). 2. It is correct that it must be on its own line, as a technical matter, but one blank like just before it is not a technical requirement, just a recommentation (and often ignored when a subheading immediately follows a heading or a hatnote after a heading), so needs to be reworded. 3. Should read "it will still carry terminal punctuation after". Just state it as a fact instead of a demand. 4. Should read "is added at the end." 5. Should read something like "also needs a romanized form for use in English." I would bet good money that all this "must" nonsense was added by a particular editor, now topic-banned from all of MoS, who was on a years-long campaign to make MoS emphatic and excessively prescriptive (in the direction of that person's particular preferences). It has taken many years to clean up after them, and I'm not surprised there are little bits still left to repair. PS: Please do not approach Wikipedia as if a bureaucracy. We absolutely do not need a rule that says we "must" avoid using "must" in things that are not policies or technical requirements. It's just sensible writing, and avoiding "must" in our guidelines simply matches 99.99999% of the rest of our guideline material. Consensus exists regardless of whether it has been recorded in a rule we do not need to record, and when so close to zero of our guideline material says "must" that you can only find 5 examples, that is clearly an overwhelming consensus on the matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- What's your underlying worry with the word must? It seems to be particular to the word itself, because your suggestions have the same level of force, just using other words. I don't think we should tiptoe about in a way that suggests we have people with Pathological demand avoidance in mind. If editors must do something, then they must; there's no benefit to trying to cover that up by saying "always" or "have to" or any of the other synonyms for must.
- PS: What I want is for editors to stop saying that guidelines should not use words like must, out of the mistaken and misguided belief that only policies and technical requirements "deserve" to make firm demands on editors. If the community is making firm demands, then those firm demands need to be communicated with clarity and accuracy on every page, not just on pages that have a certain label at the top. (There are a lot more than five examples available, if you want to see them. Here's a list of 108 guidelines using the word must. That's 40% of the guidelines – far too widespread to suggest that it's the work of just one opinionated editor, and far too accepted to pretend that there isn't community backing for this.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- What's your fondness for it? The concerns are that to anyone familiar with the norms of technical documentation, the word "must" indicates an asbsolute, inflexible requirement, and there is no such thing coming from a style guideline (any policy or technical requirement such a page happened to be contextually reminding editors about comes from an authority external to the guideline, either the policy in question or the technical specs of MW). To anyone not familiar with tech-writing norms, the term still indicates a policy-level requirement, which nothing in MoS is, and it produces basically a "micro-WP:POLICYFORK" of MoS material posing as policy and conflicting with the WP:P&G definition of guidelines as always permitting commonsense exceptions. There absolutely is a benefit to using other teminology, even "always" or "never" if the case really calls for it, rather than "must", namely avoiding the technical confusion that something will break if it isn't done as advised, and the non-technical confusion that someone might be sanctioned if they don't do as advised. This stuff matters. I have no idea why you've this simple copy-editing matter as the hill to die on, but I guaratee you if I open an RfC at VPPOL proposing non-"must" changes to all of the above instances that it will be a WP:SNOW in favor of making them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I like it because it's clear. Style guidelines do have absolute, inflexible requirements. See, e.g., the placement of the lead image or infobox. It will absolutely, inflexibly, invariably be placed on the right.
- I don't think that "must" should be conflated with "enforced in software" ("something will break if it isn't done as advised"), and it's wrong to think of breaking a policy as resulting in sanctions. People get sanctioned for violating essays all the time. There are more block log entries citing the essay Wikipedia:Tendentious editing than there are blocks that happened because of violating the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability or the Wikipedia:Editing policy – and we know that both of those policies are violated every day of the week.
- I think you would be surprised by the response to your hypothetical RFC. A clear question would be "Shall we first repeal the long-standing policy statement that says guidelines are permitted to use the word must, and if so, shall we then change the wording of all sentences in the Manual of Style currently using the word must, such as those declaring that punctuation "must" be added at the end of sentences, so that they no longer use that particular word?"
- That sounds like a loser of a proposal to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you phrased it that way you would be yelled at for making a non-neutral pseudo-RfC abusing argument to emotion by making fake claims of a "repeal", when nothing at issue about the term "must" would be actually be raised about anything beyond a handful of usese when it does not actually refer to a "must" situation (requirement by policy or technical limitations). I have no idea why you're picking a silly fight about this trivia; we usually seem to get along, but you are coming off as excessively aggressive about this one particular thing, and I'd like that to stop. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Must" situations are not limited to technical limitations and policy requirements. This is not true in the tech doc world; this is not true on Wikipedia. It may be your personal preference, but it isn't true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is just turning circular. Let's stop. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- As for why I care: When good editors say "Oh, guidelines can't say 'must'" – even though they have policy-level authorization to do so, with none of the limitations you have assumed – then POV pushers and wikilawyers say "When it says 'must', it means 'optional'" when they don't like what the guidelines say, and they say "Well, it says 'should' or 'may', but it really means 'must', because we're just too polite to use hard words like must in a guideline". We lose coming and going when you say that guidelines can't or shouldn't communicate hard requirements, or that certain words are taboo when communicating that requirement.
- The placement of the lead image on the right is a hard requirement. There are lots of ways to communicate that, and I don't honestly care which one is chosen. I want you (and anyone else) to stop telling other editors that it's taboo to communicate that hard requirement with the word must. The other options can be better, prettier, nicer, clearer, more alliterative, more concise, more parallel, or any other virtue you can think of; I just don't want you to keep telling people that it's wrong for a guideline to use the word must when communicating a hard requirement that arises from no source higher than the community's views of what that guideline needs to tell people. Editors really must place lead images on the right; we should not be telling them that this is a bad way to express that hard requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what part of "This is just turning circular. Let's stop" sounded like an invitation to repeat your viewpoint yet again in two more paragraphs. If "There are lots of ways to communicate that, and I don't honestly care which one is chosen", then you're contradicting yourself in demanding "must"-or-bust, and venting at me for no reason about material your profess to not care about the wording of. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- (Check the timestamps; you posted while I was writing.)
- I'm not demanding "must or bust". I'm demanding that you stop telling editors that "must" is not permitted or appropriate in guidelines. Write whatever you think will be most helpful in the guidelines themselves, but:
- So long as we have a policy explicitly saying guidelines are permitted to use the word must, don't tell other editors that we can't use "must" in guidelines. It's officially permitted, even if you don't like it.
- When 40% of guidelines currently use the word must, don't tell other editors that we don't actually use "must" in guidelines. We don't need any more misinformation going around about that fact.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't respond to "demand that you stop telling editors" anything. You don't control what I say. Please just drop this; it's starting to irritate, a lot, and you should have picked up on that some time ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what part of "This is just turning circular. Let's stop" sounded like an invitation to repeat your viewpoint yet again in two more paragraphs. If "There are lots of ways to communicate that, and I don't honestly care which one is chosen", then you're contradicting yourself in demanding "must"-or-bust, and venting at me for no reason about material your profess to not care about the wording of. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is just turning circular. Let's stop. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Must" situations are not limited to technical limitations and policy requirements. This is not true in the tech doc world; this is not true on Wikipedia. It may be your personal preference, but it isn't true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you phrased it that way you would be yelled at for making a non-neutral pseudo-RfC abusing argument to emotion by making fake claims of a "repeal", when nothing at issue about the term "must" would be actually be raised about anything beyond a handful of usese when it does not actually refer to a "must" situation (requirement by policy or technical limitations). I have no idea why you're picking a silly fight about this trivia; we usually seem to get along, but you are coming off as excessively aggressive about this one particular thing, and I'd like that to stop. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- What's your fondness for it? The concerns are that to anyone familiar with the norms of technical documentation, the word "must" indicates an asbsolute, inflexible requirement, and there is no such thing coming from a style guideline (any policy or technical requirement such a page happened to be contextually reminding editors about comes from an authority external to the guideline, either the policy in question or the technical specs of MW). To anyone not familiar with tech-writing norms, the term still indicates a policy-level requirement, which nothing in MoS is, and it produces basically a "micro-WP:POLICYFORK" of MoS material posing as policy and conflicting with the WP:P&G definition of guidelines as always permitting commonsense exceptions. There absolutely is a benefit to using other teminology, even "always" or "never" if the case really calls for it, rather than "must", namely avoiding the technical confusion that something will break if it isn't done as advised, and the non-technical confusion that someone might be sanctioned if they don't do as advised. This stuff matters. I have no idea why you've this simple copy-editing matter as the hill to die on, but I guaratee you if I open an RfC at VPPOL proposing non-"must" changes to all of the above instances that it will be a WP:SNOW in favor of making them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Why I'm opposing the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter Ratification
editA note for my talk-page stalkers – here's my opposition vote comment:
The "even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C" portion of this is not acceptable at all: "Movement government structures may also refer UCoC enforcement cases or appeals, even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C, to the U4C." Nope. U4C has to stay within its scope or this will just turn into a "forum-shop my buddies to get a result the community denied me" kangaroo court. This even directly contradicts previous rulemaking in the same document: "The U4C will not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC, or its enforcement."
This is also problematic (aside from the grammar error in it): "Provides a final interpretation of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC if the need arises, in collaboration with community members enforcement structures". This "collaboration" is undefined, and too vague to be meaningful.
There may be other issues with it as well, but these two parts alone were enough to trigger my immediate opposition. Policy writing is hard, and the drafters of this are not trying or thinking hard enough yet.
The vote is somehow only open until 2024-02-02. Can anyone say "rush job" and "ramrod"?
- The voting page: meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Voter information
- The draft charter: meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter
- Main page of the UCoC Coordinating Committee: meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Improper close of MOS botany
editI recommend you undo your Plant Descriptions thread closure at WT:MOS. As you know from your own work on MOS:CS and your recent proposal to add it to the general WP MOS, the thread is indeed absolutely an MOS issue, WP:BOTANY does not have its own MOS under active development. It's also not a sourcing matter -- Meteorquake is describing the order in which content sections should be presented, and why it being unorganized as now causes confusion, which seems like exactly the kind of thing MOS:CS is set up around.
Meteorquake was correctly told to check with WT:BOTANY. But as this can be nothing other than a style issue, and as BOTANY has no MOS project set up yet, the thread is improperly closed, and the description and edit summary are inaccurate. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Meteorquake was correctly told to check with WT:BOTANY" is entirely correct, and that should be sufficient. There is no "improperly" about closing it; if you think otherwise, feel free to point me to the policy that says so. But it's not an admin close; you can just go revert me if you insist on it. The primary concern raised in that WT:MOS thread has nothing to do with article writing style or even article structure in the strict sense (what sections need to exist per MOS:LAYOUT and in what order). It is about content and sourcing pertaining to the phenotypic presentation of a plant in different environments. I.e., it's about whether sufficient source research on a given plant has been done by our editors. It's also very secondarily about the information architecture of the information that is available, i.e. whether the material is grouped in sections in a sensible manner, but MoS has no rule about this, and it's an article-by-article determination. WT:BOTANY needs to be made aware of the problems, with the topically competent participants there being the most likely editors to address those issues in the affected articles (which might be numerous and may be disparate in their cleanup needs, in ways no MoS line item could ever address).
"BOTANY has no MOS project set up yet" doesn't even really make sense. There is no such thing as a wikproject's "MOS project". The MOS:CS discussion is about the nonsensical situation that we have a long-standing style advice page that is actually followed and has MOS:FOO shortcuts, i.e. is basically treated as if it's part of MoS, but it not titled, tagged, and categorized as one, but as a wikiproject style essay. That WP:BOTANY has no corresponding page, either as a guideline or as an essay, is just immaterial. The vast majority of wikiprojects have never generated a style advice essay, much less gotten it elevated to MoS guideline status, because most topics do not have style matters we need to address that are topic-specific. The lack of more such essays and guidelines is generally desirable, for WP:CREEP and especially WP:MOSBLOAT reasons: We don't need more rules than we already have (actually need fewer of them), most especially style rules, which are subject to more dispute than any other kind. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind; I reverted my own close and left a more detailed note about why this is off-topic. Nothing was wrong with closing it, but I'm tired of lame arguments. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#Article_advice is mostly stuff that should go into a MOS, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template is guidance about what should go into a plant article (although it is certainly not obvious that "Template" refers to that). Plantdrew (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
edit
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For noting that unencyclopedic detail was inserted into the Brunswick Corporation and taking prompt action, exemplifying scrutiny, precision and community service! gidonb (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
- Also an opportunity to still thank for your support for the NEC Nijmegen rename! gidonb (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't even remember that one. I comment in lots and lots and lots of RM discussions. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, we usually look forward and there is always so much to do on WP. After identifying someone as a good candidate for a barnstar, it can be fun to see how you collaborated. For example. gidonb (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes! I did come closer to ArbCom election, twice, than any other non-admin candidate. I still think we need at least one non-admin in ArbCom, every tranche, since when it is all admins all the time, it's a "who's watching the watchmen?" problem. But I'm unlikely to run again. Me being one of main shepherds of MoS (and thus a blockader of constant attempts to change it willy-nilly to suit people's personal writing-preference pecadillos) means there will always be a large contingent of editors angry with me, so I'm ultimately just never going to be a suitable candidate. Someone else who does entirely non-controverial work around here should run. Besides, I really don't have time for it now. In that era, I did. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, at least you tried!!! In my 20+ years as a Wikipedian I have never submitted myself to anything, or any article I wrote, though there were times I ran into cool historical stuff during my research. Just one example. I did try all kinds of change, for example renaming the Belgian province of Luxembourg, you joined me, and we went down in flames. Since then the standards have been changed, making such a move virtually impossible. Over the years at WP, through trial and error, I have learned to put the stuff that does come your way without asking (I was always happy it did) more front and center so people write to you, at least on average, more focused on content and at a more pleasant tone. gidonb (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- A pleasant tone is rare in style matters, for reasons. Because every single editor detests at least one line item in MoS, and I get in the way of them forcing a change to suit their preferences (which would just turn into years of slow revert-warring with others who have different preferences), some subset of editors are perpetually pissed off at me. It's just how it goes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I sure see that you deal with a lot of unpleasantness on your talk page. Take a look how my talk page starts every year and see if this will work for you. I really hated all this negativety poured over me and it has become much less since I use this system. Just a friendly tip of something that works for me, for someone who deserves better! Thanks again for all that you do and until the next collaboration! gidonb (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which diff am I looking for? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a diff. Look at your LI and give me a call sometime ;-) Take care! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see: big pile of barnstars. :-) LI? LinkedIn? I don't go there very often, but will stop in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a diff. Look at your LI and give me a call sometime ;-) Take care! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which diff am I looking for? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I sure see that you deal with a lot of unpleasantness on your talk page. Take a look how my talk page starts every year and see if this will work for you. I really hated all this negativety poured over me and it has become much less since I use this system. Just a friendly tip of something that works for me, for someone who deserves better! Thanks again for all that you do and until the next collaboration! gidonb (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- A pleasant tone is rare in style matters, for reasons. Because every single editor detests at least one line item in MoS, and I get in the way of them forcing a change to suit their preferences (which would just turn into years of slow revert-warring with others who have different preferences), some subset of editors are perpetually pissed off at me. It's just how it goes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, at least you tried!!! In my 20+ years as a Wikipedian I have never submitted myself to anything, or any article I wrote, though there were times I ran into cool historical stuff during my research. Just one example. I did try all kinds of change, for example renaming the Belgian province of Luxembourg, you joined me, and we went down in flames. Since then the standards have been changed, making such a move virtually impossible. Over the years at WP, through trial and error, I have learned to put the stuff that does come your way without asking (I was always happy it did) more front and center so people write to you, at least on average, more focused on content and at a more pleasant tone. gidonb (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes! I did come closer to ArbCom election, twice, than any other non-admin candidate. I still think we need at least one non-admin in ArbCom, every tranche, since when it is all admins all the time, it's a "who's watching the watchmen?" problem. But I'm unlikely to run again. Me being one of main shepherds of MoS (and thus a blockader of constant attempts to change it willy-nilly to suit people's personal writing-preference pecadillos) means there will always be a large contingent of editors angry with me, so I'm ultimately just never going to be a suitable candidate. Someone else who does entirely non-controverial work around here should run. Besides, I really don't have time for it now. In that era, I did. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, we usually look forward and there is always so much to do on WP. After identifying someone as a good candidate for a barnstar, it can be fun to see how you collaborated. For example. gidonb (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't even remember that one. I comment in lots and lots and lots of RM discussions. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to bring this problem to your attention. The behaviour of this user seems strange to me; for example you, and I trust you very much, put vecchio in italics, why then did I, who followed the same logic, according to this user get it wrong? However, I follow the indications of a very famous and renowned English dictionary, so I'm not using italics at random. JackkBrown (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please use the preview feature before saving. You hit me with ten "new message" notices, to just leave a two-sentence note. I've responded to the issue over at Eric's talk page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: sorry for the notifications. And what about my question? The fact that, for example, on the vecchio page, the italics is correct, and on the pages that this user has modified he claims that it's incorrect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eric), even though I have consulted the English language dictionaries and these foods aren't present? I really don't understand... JackkBrown (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- And now four more "new message" notices, for another short comment. Compose what you want to say. Re-read it. Save it when you are done with it. Please. I've already addressed the substantive matter at Eric's page. In short: the italics are not needed in this case, because "Parmesan cheese" or just "Parmesan" for short is an entirely assimilated term in English. Parmigiano Reggiano probably is not, though I'm not certain that would be capitalized that way in Italian; I suspect it owuld be parmigiano reggiano because most Latin-derived languages do not capitalize adjectives derived from proper nouns (I have not studied Italian in any depth, though). Vecchio would be italicized because that is not a term used in English, except in highly specialized material about Italian theatre. And again, "italicized" in this particular context means "marked up with
{{lang|it|...}}which produces the italics and also does language encoding". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)- @SMcCandlish: but I'm not referring to "Parmesan", which was not in italics before, I'm referring to the fact that he deleted all the other italics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eric; to "pizzoccheri", "tortelloni", etc., uncommon in English language, according to "Collins Dictionary" and other dictionaries). JackkBrown (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Tortelloni" is also assimilated into English (or most would think so). Pizzoccheri certainly isn't. But I'm not going to get into a big dispute about this. I warned you a while back that you were likely to run into conflict with other editors if you choose to focus your attention on italicizing Italian terms in English, and here it has happened as predicted. And you're still re-rediting and re-re-editing every comment you make on a talk page. I edit-conflicted with you twice trying to respond, and nothing you've added to your original post was necessary in the first place. Please stop doing that. It's one thing if you need to correct an error, but you seem to have great difficulty for some reason in just making your point and posting it, instead of making one third of your point, then posting that partial thought immediately for no reason, only to make another partial point a moment later, then another partial point another moment later, and so on. It's quite frustrating. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: "tortellini" is assimilated in the English language, but not "tortelloni". JackkBrown (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- In any case, he didn't delete my edits because he thought these terms were common, he claimed that "We don't italicize the term that is the subject of the article throughout the article", absolutely NONSENSE (User talk:Eric#Problem), he also deleted the italics that had already been there for some time (on "pecorino romano"); I repeat, he did this for his own interests, not for a question of known or unknown, he didn't speak of this. In any case, yes, it's difficult for me to express my ideas, because I'm not listened to (by you yes, but by others almost never). JackkBrown (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- And now seven more "you have a message" notices from you. What is the problem here? Why can you not just compose a message, think about it for a moment and re-read it a couple of times, edit it as needed, THEN post it, and leave it alone? Both "tortellini" and "tortelloni" are common enough in English. "We don't italicize the term that is the subject of the article throughout the article" is obviously not correct for terms that are foreignisms in English. But what he might have been meaning to say is something like "This term has not been italicized throughout the article, so it should not have been italicized by you in this particular spot." I'm not really sure, and do not have a lot of incentive to get involved in this dispute over trivia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: that's fine, but it's very bad that every little mistake I make (I make very few and correct them if I can) is made out to be a huge thing, and that instead really problematic users like him are left alone. There's no unequal treatment, I'm fed up. I have given so much, too much, to this encyclopaedia, and in return I have only received criticism, some of it constructive. Good night and excuse me. JackkBrown (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- This may not be a good hobby for you if a disagreement about italics or capitalization makes you think someone else is "really problematic". We do not need to have a battleground about such matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: that's fine, but it's very bad that every little mistake I make (I make very few and correct them if I can) is made out to be a huge thing, and that instead really problematic users like him are left alone. There's no unequal treatment, I'm fed up. I have given so much, too much, to this encyclopaedia, and in return I have only received criticism, some of it constructive. Good night and excuse me. JackkBrown (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- And now seven more "you have a message" notices from you. What is the problem here? Why can you not just compose a message, think about it for a moment and re-read it a couple of times, edit it as needed, THEN post it, and leave it alone? Both "tortellini" and "tortelloni" are common enough in English. "We don't italicize the term that is the subject of the article throughout the article" is obviously not correct for terms that are foreignisms in English. But what he might have been meaning to say is something like "This term has not been italicized throughout the article, so it should not have been italicized by you in this particular spot." I'm not really sure, and do not have a lot of incentive to get involved in this dispute over trivia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Tortelloni" is also assimilated into English (or most would think so). Pizzoccheri certainly isn't. But I'm not going to get into a big dispute about this. I warned you a while back that you were likely to run into conflict with other editors if you choose to focus your attention on italicizing Italian terms in English, and here it has happened as predicted. And you're still re-rediting and re-re-editing every comment you make on a talk page. I edit-conflicted with you twice trying to respond, and nothing you've added to your original post was necessary in the first place. Please stop doing that. It's one thing if you need to correct an error, but you seem to have great difficulty for some reason in just making your point and posting it, instead of making one third of your point, then posting that partial thought immediately for no reason, only to make another partial point a moment later, then another partial point another moment later, and so on. It's quite frustrating. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: but I'm not referring to "Parmesan", which was not in italics before, I'm referring to the fact that he deleted all the other italics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eric; to "pizzoccheri", "tortelloni", etc., uncommon in English language, according to "Collins Dictionary" and other dictionaries). JackkBrown (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- And now four more "new message" notices, for another short comment. Compose what you want to say. Re-read it. Save it when you are done with it. Please. I've already addressed the substantive matter at Eric's page. In short: the italics are not needed in this case, because "Parmesan cheese" or just "Parmesan" for short is an entirely assimilated term in English. Parmigiano Reggiano probably is not, though I'm not certain that would be capitalized that way in Italian; I suspect it owuld be parmigiano reggiano because most Latin-derived languages do not capitalize adjectives derived from proper nouns (I have not studied Italian in any depth, though). Vecchio would be italicized because that is not a term used in English, except in highly specialized material about Italian theatre. And again, "italicized" in this particular context means "marked up with
- @SMcCandlish: sorry for the notifications. And what about my question? The fact that, for example, on the vecchio page, the italics is correct, and on the pages that this user has modified he claims that it's incorrect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eric), even though I have consulted the English language dictionaries and these foods aren't present? I really don't understand... JackkBrown (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
"at 85", "at age 85", "at the age of 85", etc.
edit@Martinevans123, Necrothesp, Julietdeltalima, and MapReader:: It's unlikely that the short forms (or at least the semi-short one) constitute "an Americanism omitting vital words". There is likely dialectal variation on this even within the UK itself. There's a whole book about the subject of "She gave him a book" versus "She gave a book to him" construction variety across British English itself:
Gerwin, Johanna (2014). Ditransitives in British English Dialects. Topics in English Linguistics ser., no. 50.3. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 9783110352146.
Probably something to get at a library (perhaps through inter-library loan) unless you have access to such material via some kind of institutional account. It's one of those stupid-expensive academic volumes, at US$138. My own n-grams showed broad usage distribution when it came to the age phrasing. The thread's now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 227#Aged etc, but in summary: it's probably good that we did not get toward instituting some "rule" about this, based on anecdotal speculation about what sounds best to any of us. Best left to editorial discretion at a particular article (even a particular sentence, e.g. one might have an early sentence use the long form and a later sentence use one of the shorter ones to avoid unnecessary repetitive verbiage). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you nailed it early on, with your bracketed comment “each of them works better in different sentence structures”. There may well be national differences in which formulations ‘feel’ more natural in different contexts, but if we were able to nail them down precisely at WP, we ourselves would be writing books for $138 a time. MapReader (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I actually started writing a Style Guide for English with a Global Audience in the 21st Century (among other working titles), and years later it's only fractionally done (60,000 words). Writing a serious book takes tremendous discipline and focus (which would mean largely abandoning WP for a long period of time) to do all the research and then actually synthesize it into something useful. I do have co-authorship of one book under my belt, but honestly it was mostly assembled by the other author, from material I'd already written in the course my "day job". Writing comprehensive non-fiction from scratch is really challenging. I'll probably finish one on the history and politics of tartans and Highland dress before I finish the style book. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Title caps question
editGreetings, SMcCandlish! Hey, here's a title caps question for you. Shouldn't "Sitting on Top of the World" actually be "Sitting On Top of the World", with the word "on " capitalized? I was sorta thinking it should, because MOS:TITLECAPS says to capitalize "the first word in a compound preposition (e.g. Time Out of Mind)". I'm not sure though, so, what do you think? — Mudwater (Talk) 15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I'm asking is that I'm planning on creating an article about Sitting On Top of the Blues, an album by Bobby Rush, and I want to use the appropriate capitalization for that. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mudwater: It's on, since this is a prepositional phrase with a noun referent (on + top) which in turn is modifying another prepositional phrase with another noun-phrase referent (of + the world/blues). It's not a compound preposition like out of (a chaining of two prepositions into a new meaning; sometimes these completely fuse, as in upon, onto, into, within, without, and the Northern British equivalent of the latter, outwith, picked up from the Scots language, plus some vernacular spoken English novelties like outta; others do not fuse, e.g. "out in[to]", "from around", etc., as in "going out in[to] the world", "reaching from around the side"). Rather, "on top of" (a contraction of on the top of) has top which is a locational noun, not a preposition. That is, it's an obscured prepositional phrase with a noun object, not a compound preposition. There are lots of these (some more common in one dialect than another): "going out back", "moving up front", "coming from behind" (with "behind" in its locational noun sense, not the prepositional use in a phrapse like "stand behind the line"). This particular "on top of" case is confusing because it's become a stock phrase, and may be on the way to evolving into a compound preposition (some fused examples of that process would be inside, outside, alongside, contractions from longer Middle English phrases that used side as a noun). One could say "going out back on Sunday", "moving up front in time with the others", "coming from behind out of nowhere", etc., and similarly juxtapose two prepositional phrases with the first modifying the second, as in sitting on top of the world, but they don't form customary collocations like "on top of". There are a few other such collocations, like "in front of", "at/in the front/rear/back/side of", but treated as any other prepositonal construction in a title: "Go to the Back of the Line", "Alone in Front of the Jury". (In a few hundred years, may have a fused novel preposition, infronta.)
So anyway, "Sitting on Top of the World" and Sitting on Top of the Blues are what to use. Broad advice that serves well on virtually all style questions: If there's any doubt, presume it's poorly founded and just follow the most applicable general MoS rule, as a default. (If you think some codified exception to it might apply but are not sure, presume it does not.) If you skirt the rule based on subjective doubt, it invites unnecessary dispute which would likely not arise otherwise. Put another way, if you can imagine some doubt, leave it to someone else with a bee in their bonnet about it to make the case that the doubt is well-founded and that an exception applies or should be made. Don't do the work for them (you'll find it thankless, since such propositions always meet with objection from others). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent, that's great stuff! Thanks!
— Mudwater (Talk) 01:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent, that's great stuff! Thanks!
"Template:R from project" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Template:R from project has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 20 § Template:R from project until a consensus is reached. —a smart kitten[meow] 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Blockquote paragraphs
edit
Template:Blockquote paragraphs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
February thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving quality articles in February. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
edit
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jessintime (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? You're going to start an AN thread and make an evidence-free bad-faith accusation, all because you're not getting your way at an essay about the disrutiveness of style-warrior behavior? Really? Every heard of using the talk page? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Spectacles in photograph
editThey're at least one size too big for you. Tony (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I like 'em big and nerdy. The frames mostly keep out of my vision. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason endorsed. Tony (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Especially important with an ultra-wide monitor! Mine visually fits more or less perfectly within my periperhally visible frames. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yer talkin' to someone who did a PhD in perhiperal vision. :-) Tony (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah so! I especiall like this pair for the movies, too; I can get the whole screen in without having to move to the back rows. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yer talkin' to someone who did a PhD in perhiperal vision. :-) Tony (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Especially important with an ultra-wide monitor! Mine visually fits more or less perfectly within my periperhally visible frames. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reason endorsed. Tony (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
More for Dahua Technology
editHi, SMcCandlish. Thanks for your previous help with adjusting inaccurate terminology on the Dahua Technology page. In an effort to update the article, I put up a new request on the Talk page and thought you may want to have a look. Happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks, Caitlyn23 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I just wanted to check in again in case you may have missed my message. If you have time to take a look at my recent edit request on the Dahua Technology Talk page, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SMcCandlish. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:LINK question
editI know we haven't always seen eye to eye on certain items, but you're easily one of the most knowledgeable editors out there about MOS matters and I respect your point-of-view. My question is about linking from infoboxes. Over the past couple of years, infoboxes have been gradually added to several featured biography articles. Many of these articles have links to list of works or awards for quick reference for example, Alec Guinness has a link to works. Does this practice violate the MOS? Is this spelled out anywhere? Should it be? Thanks for any feedback you can provide! Nemov (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Nemov: FWIW, I don't recall not seeing eye-to-eye with you; I make a habit of ignoring and forgetting usernames to the extent I can so that I stay focused on content instead of personalities. :-)
As to the question: Is this only about links that go out to another article like Alec Guinness on stage and screen, or ones that link in-article to a section below? I think with regard to the Guinness case (and similar stuff is very often done at band and album and single articles, to link to discographies, to previous/next album in chronological sequence, to album from song, etc.; and there are many other such cases), this is basically an integration of navbox features into the infobox, to avoid having a separate right-hand navbox sidebar. In many cases, it's going to be technically redundant with a page-bottom navbox, but there seems to be widespread community tolerance of providing multiple forms of navigation to account for the different ways various individual readers respond to information-architectural features. E.g. navboxes themselves are technically reundant to categories and vice-versa. This is covered in a general way at WP:CLNT.
I just searched that page for the word "infobox" and it does not appear. I searched MOS:INFOBOX for "nav", and the relevant material there is this: "As with navigation templates, the purpose of the infobox is for its utility, not appearance; therefore, infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative. ... Like navigation templates, infoboxes should avoid flag icons. For more information about flag icons, see MOS:FLAG. ... Other types of templates: Wikipedia:Navigation templates – article footers designed to provide links to several related articles". That's it. Nothing relevant for a "nav" search at WP:WikiProject Infoboxes. Template:Infobox provides an example of merging an infobox into
{{Sidebar}}as a sub-box (and the implication is that it works the other way around, too, since{{Infobox}}and more specific infoboxes based on that meta-template also support the sub-box functionality).There seems to be no pro or con guideline material (unless it's in some other page) that pertains to having navigational features in infoboxes (either as line-items like in the Guinness case, or as sub-boxes). Per the lead material at MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox primarily serves as a nutshell that "summarizes key features of the page's subject" ("features" is rather poor wording; I'm going to go change that to "facts" or "details") and "show[s] information relevant to the article subject"; "relevant" at least in theory could include some navigational material to closely related articles (I'm more skeptical regarding links to sections within the same article). There appears to be broad acceptance, so far, of navigational features also being present in infoboxes, at least in certain types of infoboxes and in certain forms, but it's not clear whether this is actually a best practice. So, something to perhaps raise as a question at WT:MOSINFOBOX. History that occurs to me is that WP's infoboxes actually originated as a form of navigation, and were first implemented at articles that were part of a series on related subjects. They were only later generalized to other sorts of articles because their features were thought useful. Given the level of discord that arises about infoboxes, I'm hesitant to say more, ha ha. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, this is in regards to linking to a separate related article like Alec Guinness on stage and screen. I don't think it makes sense if the link goes to a section of the article. Nemov (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hope it helps one way or another. I know it's not a simple answer, but at least WT:MOSINFOBOX is clear as the venue for where to seek clarification, propose some advice/limits/practices, etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, this is in regards to linking to a separate related article like Alec Guinness on stage and screen. I don't think it makes sense if the link goes to a section of the article. Nemov (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Resisting AI
editHi, done some work on the page, added more reviews, noted your kind edits, would you please give a second look. I sincerely think this work is noticeable and feed into a very present discussion on AI; the book is very opinionated, and perhaps this is the reason why its Wikipedia page reads as opinionated, though I did my best to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Saltean: I worked it over a bit more, and removed most of the cleanup tags, since the tone has vastly improved. But nothing's going to resolve the notability issue when most of the sourcing is interviews and non-notable websites written by random schmoes, and what's not is mostly rote reviews that don't indicate the work has lasting significance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
MOS:Bio query - naming UK High Court judges in ancillary articles
editHey,
Does WP:MOSBIO have any guidance on how we name UK High Court justices in articles outside of their respective biographies? I'm currently working on rescuing a draft where it's necessary to make reference to a High Court ruling and the judge who issued it. The sources about the ruling itself all describe the judge as Mr Justice <name>. I can't quite tell if this is something that's covered by MOS:JOBTITLE or an odd application of MOS:CREDENTIAL, or if there's some other more specific guidance elsewhere. Have you any inklings on this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: That would be a CREDENTIAL matter + MOS:HONORIFICS and MOS:MR. WP doesn't use Mr[.], Mrs[.], Ms[.], Mx[.] (or foreign equivalents like French M./Mssr., Mme., Mlle.) in any manner like this[*] (some newspapers do it, including various British ones as well as The New York Times, as an old-fashioned-ism). "Justice Gwynneth Knowles" or whatever would be appropriate, when it's necessary to indicate that they're a justice, but after that's established, just "Knowles" would usually work. (That said, all or almost all of these persons are Sir/Dame also, and whether use that in any particular construction is often subject to some debate. It doesn't seem conventional to write "Mrs. Justice Dame Gynneth Knowles" for whatever reason, and "Dame"/"Sir" is only ever used when first name is present, so not "Dame Knowles"). US and other figures are treated the same way with regard to the judidical titles, e.g. "Chief Justice John Roberts", thereafter just "Roberts".
[* The exception is of course when "Mr." or whatever isn't being used in its normal way and is forming part of a proper name, like the bands Mr. Bungle and Mr. Mister, or the song title "Mrs. Robinson". But the speaker of the US House of Representatives is "job-titled" here as Speaker Mike Johnson not Mr. Speaker Mike Johnson, though the latter is the conventionalized way for him to be addressed by other legislators when in session.]I think what's happening here is also that people confuse forms of address used when writing to people or introducing them at a function, with how to write about them in the third person. Thus you can sometimes run into things like "the Rt Hon. Alex Crabapple" in running text, despite HONORIFICS saying not to do that. Should just be fixed when encountered without making a big deal out of it, unless someone's going around doing this all over the place, then they need to be pointed at the guideline and asked to stop.
There's a closely related problem in which some editors from WP:PEERAGE and WP:ROYALTY have gone around in a WP:FAITACCOMPLI manner, misusing (over numerous objections) the
|name=parameter of{{infobox officeholder}}or{{infobox person}}to hold an honorific form of address that is neither the name nor how the person would normally be written about in third person, but how they would be addressed in a letter or when introduced at a speaking engagement. See, e.g., Gwynneth Knowles, Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, etc. This is confusing to readers and editors alike, and not even really encyclopedic information, since virtually zero of our readers need to write a letter to David Cameron, and even if they did, WP is not advice on the etiquette of how to best do that (though the form of direct address arguably might be coverable somewhere in the article on the general sort of title). The only way to resolve that mess is probably going to be with a VPPOL-level RfC. I don't relish it, because it's going to be yet another instance of topical specialists in conflict with general MoS rules, and that almost always leads to heat and drama. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)"Justice Gwynneth Knowles" or whatever would be appropriate, when it's necessary to indicate that they're a justice, but after that's established, just "Knowles" would usually work.
Awesome, I'll make that change in a moment.- It might be helpful if some direct guidance on this could be added somewhere in the MOS? It's not clear from the plain reading of CREDENTIAL or HONORIFICS how to handle this specific type of name (UK High Court justices) in practice. Quite a lot of them tend to be allowed to use The Honourable or The Right Honourable honorifics, and while those are generally excluded outside of their own biographies it's unclear how that also interacts with the Justice title. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- In theory MoS could be clearer on this, though it may take a little research. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
edit
DisregardYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 61
editThe Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
- Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
- 1Lib1Ref results
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-ang/doc
edit DoneTemplate:Lang-ang/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Reminder
editPer this AE report you are formally reminded to remain civil in MOS discussions, that you remain under sanction, and that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia. I expect that if you end up at AE again the result will be significantly more severe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: Noted, but please beware of presumtion of guilt, which your notice is heavily laced with. Anyone may "end up at" AE, AN[I], or any other noticeboard, with various accusations made against them which may not be true.
In particular, in this case I demonstrated that while I had displayed some civility issues, many of the accusations were false, especially with regard to "assuming bad faith", which I provably did not do, and which is what my sanction actually pertains to, not incivililty. "Assuming bad faith" and "incivility" are not in any way synonymous. I would expect that an AE admin would understand all of this deeply and clearly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I find it rather concerning, in a WP:ADMINACCT way, that after you posted above what amounts to an unreasonable threat to use administrative powers in response to me ever simply being accused of something again, after I successfully defended myself against false accusations of the same sort already, that you have produced no response of any kind to the concerns I've raised about that. I've let this lie for 7 months and that is more than long enough for you to address them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I assessed the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, and informed you of the result. That you disagree with the result isn't unexpected, but it is what it is. As far as admincond goes, I didn't see anything requiring a response. You asked no questions, and said how you thought you comported yourself in the AE report. My close was based on the consensus of uninvolved administrators, which was clear after reading the discussion.
I'd be OK closing this with a reminder about that restriction... I think that serves as well as anything... Concur... Adding a sentence to the "reminder" that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia should be enough there... That seems fair to me.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- @ScottishFinnishRadish: You did that but also included what is very difficult to not interpret as a block/ban threat simply for being accused again, simply for reappearing on the AE radar, ever, regardless of the evidence:
I expect that if you end up at AE again the result will be significantly more severe.
You also improperly commingled two entirely severable matters ("reminders about that restriction" and "'reminder' that civility applies everywhere") in a grossly misleading way that implies they are identical or one a subset of the other: leading with civility, tying that in the same sentence to my restriction (which is AGF not CIVIL), then reinforcing this policy- and sactions-incorrect admixture with another semantic tie of the latter back to civility, doubling down on the error.Let's rewrite your message with substitute terms and you should see why it's problematic and to what extent: "You are formally reminded to not litter in the park, that you remain on probation [for tax evasion], and that not littering applies everywhere within the city limits. I expect that if you end up at court again the result will be significantly more severe." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had assumed that explicitly linking to the sanction would adequately communicate the sanctions I was referring to. The last part, noting that if you ended up at AE again (for a related issue, which I suppose I could have explicitly said) that I expected you'd see a more severe result was based on my reading of the discussion and the good faith that was extended in accepting that you had forgotten about the existing sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that (and why) you thought what you wrote was "good enough" or "clear enough" or however you might like to phrase that. But that's not actually responsive in any way to my points about why it was malformed and alarming to the point of being inappropriate (for multiple reasons). If you're going to continue just dodging this, then don't bother; I've made the point and you can actually respond to it or not, but it doesn't magically go away. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had assumed that explicitly linking to the sanction would adequately communicate the sanctions I was referring to. The last part, noting that if you ended up at AE again (for a related issue, which I suppose I could have explicitly said) that I expected you'd see a more severe result was based on my reading of the discussion and the good faith that was extended in accepting that you had forgotten about the existing sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: You did that but also included what is very difficult to not interpret as a block/ban threat simply for being accused again, simply for reappearing on the AE radar, ever, regardless of the evidence:
- I assessed the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, and informed you of the result. That you disagree with the result isn't unexpected, but it is what it is. As far as admincond goes, I didn't see anything requiring a response. You asked no questions, and said how you thought you comported yourself in the AE report. My close was based on the consensus of uninvolved administrators, which was clear after reading the discussion.
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I find it rather concerning, in a WP:ADMINACCT way, that after you posted above what amounts to an unreasonable threat to use administrative powers in response to me ever simply being accused of something again, after I successfully defended myself against false accusations of the same sort already, that you have produced no response of any kind to the concerns I've raised about that. I've let this lie for 7 months and that is more than long enough for you to address them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
edit DisregardYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
March thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in March! - I uploaded Madeira vacation pics (from back home, at least the first day) and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
JOBTITLES
editJust so I don't get it wrong...I'm fixin' to move Probationary Firefighter to lower case. How does your reading of JOBTITLES incline you? Primergrey (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely lower-case, since it's a generic job-title. The third bullet over there suggests capitalizing a unique role/office/whatever title as the subject itself of its own article (and, one supposes, in sentences in the same vein, e.g. "the office of Minister of Silly Walks was created in 1970"), and even this is iffy, because it's at least conceptually contradictory with everything else in the section. But it doesn't mean to do this with generic job titles like "chief operating officer" or "professor" or "animal control officer". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Help needed for page Roman Science: Origins, Development, and Influence to the Later Middle Ages.
edit DoneApologies for intruding - I stupidly created this page with a dot in the title, and do not know how to remove it. Roman Science: Origins, Development, and Influence to the Later Middle Ages. Can you help? Thanks. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Saltean: Fixed that for you. You should have been able to use the "Move" function to do this, as I did. Where it is and what it's called will vary depending on which skin you are using and which gadgets or other scripts you have installed (for me, it is in the top menu, as Page > Move, but I'm not sure that's the default appearance, and in some situations it might be just in the main menu and not under a "Page" submenu, and in some it might be named something like "Move page" or "Rename"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, also for your extensive work on the page. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I do so much grammar, citation formatting, and other minor-cleanup fixing that I have a lot of it on "auto-pilot", pretty much. Various scripts I've installed (and in some cases written) tend to help with it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, also for your extensive work on the page. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible farewell
editHello SMcCandlish. I am about to start an arbitration request. I don't have high expectations and I am even thinking I may get an indefinite block as boomerang, but it is something I have to address. I hope I don't get blocked and I may not get an indefinite but just in case I wanted to highlight my appreciation for the time you have taken in responding to my queries in a detailed and quality manner. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Thinker78: Commented over there. I doubt ArbCom will act on this (and not in a boomerang manner; they'll just conclude there's not enough of a case there). I don't think you should have been blocked over any of this, much less for a week, or had unblock requests rejected, or had talk-page access revoked – it was all an unnecessary overreaction and dog-pile on top of that overreaction, and has an entirely punitive feel to it, since it was not actually preventing any harm to the project. But ... I think your taking a "butt-hurt" venty stance on the matter didn't help. I don't mean that as a strong criticism; it's a reactive approach I've taken too many times myself, so I just know from experience that it tends not to end well! I've also appreciated your activity around here, despite us having conflicts on some style matters and such. Every long-term editor is an asset to the 'Pedia and its audience, and I hope this flare-up of WP:DRAMA doesn't discourage you from continuing. Sometimes it is good to take a break after such things, though. Either entirely, or just mostly. I've done both many times, and am in the middle of one of the latter for the most part, after a recent pillorying at AE. Finding other stuff to keep me busy, including a lot of reading, and baby steps towards learning another language, via Duolingo and some other materials. I've barely been checking in here, for a few weeks now, and it's been a nice change of pace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I see that ANI did act (with a community ban), but not on that request so much as all the followup after it. I guess you get a break mandatorily now. I would think that after 6 mo. or so, an appeal would be successful if you do it right. There's no question that you're generally a productive editor; something just snapped recently, and needs repairing. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
One more academic reference for the page on "Resisitng AI "
editHi! I continue monitoring for new pieces treating McQuillan's Resisting AI as they appear, and one just came out in the International Journal of Communication 18(2024), Book Review 967–970; see the text here.
Could the notability warning be removed? Thanks for your help and Happy Easter. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Will look into it as time permits, but I have a lot going on right now. In the interim, it would not hurt to look for more, via scholar.google.com, scholar.archive.org, and if you qualify for it, by getting an account at WP:The Wikipedia Library (apply at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/) and using its resources to search through journals that are not available via the other means (see here for a list of the research materials available; it's impressive). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I use Wikipedia Library. I got it after the one thousand edit I think. Good also for research. Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Found one more citation and added it. This book really appears to be having an impact. A test: Google Scholar for "resisting AI" for 2023 gives 124 citations, for 2024 40 citations ... wish my own papers has such a rate of growth. Best Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- ... and two more citations from academic articles added today. Best Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
References in parenthesis
editHi SMcCandlish. Sorry it seems easier to ask than find the relevant sections of MOS, but should reference be in inside or outside parenthesis (when used in article text)? Blah blah (Blah[1]),...
Seems logical but Blah blah (Blah)[1],...
looks more in keeping with the way articles are styled. I'm betting it's covered somewhere, but I couldn't find anything at MOS:PAREN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: This is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and footnotes. Once in a long while, there is minor dispute about this exact side point, and some editorial discretion is clearly tolerated in practice, though there's a pretty obviously logic to follow. Below, I've tweaked your example text for clarity, by putting distinct text in the parenthetical part. (However, Blah blah (yak)[1],... wouldn't be right, either way; rather:
Blah blah (yak),[1]...
, since superscripted footnotes always come after the comma, or semicolon, or period/full-point.)My personal take on this, and what I seem to observe in frequent use, is to do
Blah blah (yak),[1]...
if the citation covers the entire parenthetical. In such a circumstance,Blah blah (yak[1]),...
andBlah blah (yak),[1]...
are actually logically equivalent, and a lot of editors prefer the appearance of the latter. Also useBlah blah (yak),[1]...
if the citation covers both the parenthetical and the rest of the sentence that precedes it, obviously. When it doesn't, we'd be more expectingBlah blah[1] (yak[2]),...
orBlah blah[1] (yak),[2]...
. But always doBlah blah (yakkety[1] yak[2]),...
, or more fullyBlah blah[1] (yakkety[2] yak[3]),...
, any time the citation covers only part of the claim in the parenthetical.That MoS section should probably be updated to say something like what I just did (but more concisely), to better reflect actual practice, and to not require
Blah blah (yak[1]),...
in circumstances for whichBlah blah (yak),[1]...
is directly equivalent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- Thanks SMcCandlish. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
editHello SMcCandlish,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I updated Template:SfnRef/doc recently. I think there was a point you were making in the documentation regarding when to use templates that make parentheses. In the parts I updated, I just used the most common templates, {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}}. So I wanted to invite you to make any changes or ask any questions. Rjjiii (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- "The most common templates" are most common simply because they came about earlier; using them in most article is not actually compliant with WP:CITESTYLE because they diverge in style from the output of the other citation templates, and
{{sfnp}}and{{harvp}}should be used instead, except in an article using CS2 or some other means of outputing full citations that don't parenthesize the dates. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
DoneWe could use your help with 'what', 'which', 'to' (twice), 'in', 'froissés', 'déchirés', and 'like', and perhaps 'papier', at Talk:But what about the noise.... — BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's a thorny one. Did my best. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label has been nominated for deletion
edit DoneCategory:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
"Pepitos" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit DoneThe redirect Pepitos has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16 § Pepitos until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
edit| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
April thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in April! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Advice
editSince you had some lengthy input here regarding the reported user's conduct, I was wondering what you suggest about a recurrence of the behaviour at the New York City article, such as this biting of a new user, and this one, which wasn't much better. I don't particularly want to create a new ANI, but will if necessary. Seasider53 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The first is a little concerning, as it fits the "good ol' boys' club" ownership and wikiproject-control pattern evidenced in the original ANI, a notion that only Castncoot and his close topical friends have input that matters. The second doesn't seem problematic to me, as it provides actual reasoning about the quality of the content in question. I'm skeptical this is enough for another ANI, but if it escalates, then a topic-ban seems like a likely outcome, given the evidence I and some others provided before, if there's good evidence the problem has returned, beyond a one-off diff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Greek verb citation forms
editAn ancient Greek verb ending in "-izein" has the infinitive ending, while "-izo" shows the first person singular present indicative ending. Traditional dictionaries (Liddell and Scott etc) list verbs under the 1st singular form, while for other purposes the infinitve may be preferred. Not sure it makes much difference. AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, but most readers won't, and are just going to see a conflict between what WP says and what the source cited so far says, so we seem to need two sources, one with -izein forms and one with -izo forms (or the current -izein source and one that says they're equivalent). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 62
editThe Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
- IEEE and Haaretz now available
- Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
- Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHi SMcCandlish. Thank you for your work on Kailaasa. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm glad to see that redirect finally turn into an article that was WP:SPLIT from the over-long Nithyananda, where all the Kailaasa content was turning into a WP:COATRACK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
edit Done- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
cite AFM
editHi, when you use {{cite AFM}} could you please also use {{sfn whitelist|CITEREFO'Donovan1856}} to prevent the false Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors it causes? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: What would be causing that in the first place? It's set (now, correctly) with O'Donovan as author name and 1856 as date. I'm almost done fixing all the manual
|John O'Donovan=|1856=stuff that had to be done the way the AFM template was formerly mis-coded (with|author=AKA|last=wrongly containing the entire author name). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- I leave the whys to the clever people who invent such clever templates - it'll be something to do with the AFM template. But see Template:Sfn whitelist and Category:Harv and Sfn template errors#Current limitations and false-positive errors for more of an explanation. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: Ah, I see. It just needs to be explicitly whitelisted in Module:Footnotes, and I've made a request to this effect at Module talk:Footnotes#AFM. This template is used frequently enough that this would be better than requiring people to go around manually peppering articles with an
{{sfn whitelist}}thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- Thanks. I have Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors watchlisted, and it's been filling up with your edits! DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Should get fixed soon-ish, though I have no control over how quickly the maintainers of the module act on such matters. As a template-editor, I could in theory just go do it, but I'm a wiki-template-language nerd, and can't really Lua my way out of a paper bag, so it's safer to let the Lua module experts deal with it. I noticed you adding the
{{sfn whitelist}}template, but it seems like a lot of work to do and then later undo for a temporary display problem that doesn't actually even affect the citations' functionality.- When you're trying to empty a category it helps not to have it half-filled with false-positives. I try to remove all additions as they pop up on my watchlist, as well as working through the list. By the time I've arrived on an article and seen what the problem is, it doesn't take much longer to fix if it just needs whitelist. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I have some workflows like that as well. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- When you're trying to empty a category it helps not to have it half-filled with false-positives. I try to remove all additions as they pop up on my watchlist, as well as working through the list. By the time I've arrived on an article and seen what the problem is, it doesn't take much longer to fix if it just needs whitelist. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Should get fixed soon-ish, though I have no control over how quickly the maintainers of the module act on such matters. As a template-editor, I could in theory just go do it, but I'm a wiki-template-language nerd, and can't really Lua my way out of a paper bag, so it's safer to let the Lua module experts deal with it. I noticed you adding the
- Thanks. I have Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors watchlisted, and it's been filling up with your edits! DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: Ah, I see. It just needs to be explicitly whitelisted in Module:Footnotes, and I've made a request to this effect at Module talk:Footnotes#AFM. This template is used frequently enough that this would be better than requiring people to go around manually peppering articles with an
- I leave the whys to the clever people who invent such clever templates - it'll be something to do with the AFM template. But see Template:Sfn whitelist and Category:Harv and Sfn template errors#Current limitations and false-positive errors for more of an explanation. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
YGM
edit
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
May thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving articles in May! - Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
How to use sfnp when there is more than one issue of a journal in the same year?
editI've been cleaning up weak citations at Neoplasticism, which has the potential to be a GA. I've bumped up against the question of what to do when there is a need to cite more than one issue of a journal in the same year. The ideal would be {{sfnp|Smith|May 1924|page=123}} but that is interpreted as Smith & May 1924 p.123. I've kludged around it using ref={{sfnref to make 1924a, 1924b etc., but it is far from ideal: in context, Smith (May 1924) p.123 would be "nicer" and easier for inexperienced editors to use. Have I missed a trick or would it need a template enhancement? (If it would, whether it would be 'value for money' 
is a whole other question.) What do you think? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @JMF:
{{sfnref}}is hardcoded to only accept date parameter input in the form YYYY or YYYYx, where x is a single letter. You can't even do YYYYxz. This whole "1924a" and "1924b" stuff is actually a poor idea (imported wholesale from one or another of the offsite citation styles, probably Chicago/Turabian, though I misremember). It's a poor idea on WP because it presumes that the sources will be listed in a and b order and that this order will never change, which is an assumption that cannot be depended upon in a wiki. The editor adding the material might have put them in backwards order, or some later editor might have moved them around, or another editor might have added a third source from same author and year that goes between the original a and b. It would actually be better for{{sfnref}}to support more specific date formats like Monthname YYYY, as you desire, though it would take some testing with a bunch of templates to ensure that the #CITEREF... anchor ouput this generated actually worked with everything like{{sfnp}}and{{harvp}}. For right now, the solution still actually is to do|ref={{sfnref|Smith|1924a}}. A more manual alternative would be to do|ref=Smith (May 1924), and do citations to this in the form<ref>[[#Smith (May 1924)|Smith (May 1924)]], p. 123.</ref>. There are articles in which I have done this a few times because of an important source author churning out several articles per year. If same page has to be cited more than once, then a ref name is needed, e.g.:<ref name="Smith (May 1924), p. 123">[[#Smith (May 1924)|Smith (May 1924)]], p. 123.</ref>and a later<ref name="Smith (May 1924), p. 123" />. Code-wise, it's a bit ugly, but for the end reader is much more sensible than "Smith (1924b), p. 123", especially since we cannot (per WP:REUSE) expect that every reuse of WP content will include a link between the "1924b" string and the intended specific citation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- so even messier than I thought
. I hadn't appreciated that the a and b suffixes are position dependent. Which <expletive deleted> thought that idea would survive contact with reality? (Rhetorical question.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- We've done a lot of stuff that tends to presume "links will always be there for the reader, and will work as the editor presently intends, and will be something the reader will reliably use", all of which are assumptions that can fail for particular use cases. In the grand scheme of things, though, it is probably higher priority to fix all the uncited claims and the claims that fail verification with the sources that are provided, than to resolve potential confusion between two or three of the same-author-and-year citations that are at least present and can be verified with slightly more effort than would ideally be required. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Which is what I suspected when I wrote
... whether it would be 'value for money'
. "No further action at this time". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
is a whole other question.
- Which is what I suspected when I wrote
- We've done a lot of stuff that tends to presume "links will always be there for the reader, and will work as the editor presently intends, and will be something the reader will reliably use", all of which are assumptions that can fail for particular use cases. In the grand scheme of things, though, it is probably higher priority to fix all the uncited claims and the claims that fail verification with the sources that are provided, than to resolve potential confusion between two or three of the same-author-and-year citations that are at least present and can be verified with slightly more effort than would ideally be required. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- so even messier than I thought
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Got edit warring there again. Geogene (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Argh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Blockquote/to right of image
edit DoneTemplate:Blockquote/to right of image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
DoneThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VampaVampa (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Cue sports writers and broadcasters has been nominated for splitting
edit DoneCategory:Cue sports writers and broadcasters has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pool writers and broadcasters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Snooker writers and broadcasters has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Term/inline
edit DoneTemplate:Term/inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/multiterm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/multiterm-function has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
DoneThe redirect User:2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 2 § User:2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047 until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:AZBilliards
edit DoneTemplate:AZBilliards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of a redirect you created
edit
ResolvedHello, would you be alright with this redirect [27] being deleted to make way for an article I've written on the subject: Draft:Hypothyroidism in dogs, thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle: Sounds like a good plan. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle: I have now handily forgotten where the redirect went, but I recall that it was a section. That section could probably use a
{{Main|Hypothyroidism in dogs}}if you didn't do that already. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- It went to list of dog diseases, I'll add that now thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ehhhhhhxcellent, as Mr. Burns would say (with steepled fingers). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- It went to list of dog diseases, I'll add that now thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Traumnovelle: I have now handily forgotten where the redirect went, but I recall that it was a section. That section could probably use a
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Gbq/doc
editTemplate:Gbq/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — sbb (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hatnote Template concept: about-distinguish-for
editHey Gary Oldman Person!
I recall you helped me once w/ a Bette Davis section hatnote indent. This one is a bit different, as it's an inquiry about a page-topper hatnote (forgive/correct me, if terminologies are incorrect).
So with some similarly titled things, I think there are instances where simple About-For, Distinguish-For, etc. etc. all work just fine, or even just single About, For, Distinguish, et al. There is also Redirect-Distinguish-For, which I've used at least once. But I can't fathom exactly why there isn't an About-Distinguish-For?? I know I've edited a few recently where I felt that was the best choice, yet realized it's non-existent. I feel like it's close enough to Redirect-Distinguish-For to be worth formatting for usage. Using two separate hatnotes, in which the second ends up creating a line break/second line for no reason is no good.
For just a small example—not the best—let's use this indie film, Departure (2015). Stub, needs work. But About "2015 film". Not to be confused with 2008 film. For other films with the same title, see Departure (disambiguation) § Films. Just pretend these are bigger films, if needed. First is to identify or clarify article, rather than what redirected them there. Second, this particular alternate title that could cause confusion is the MOST notable one that is worth singling out for distinguishment, because it's the foreign-language Oscar winner. And lastly, the disambiguation is not just general departures, but a list of a few other films from various years that are also titled Departure (in some spelling/grammar variation). If need be, replace these with any Major/Minor/Other popular names of nouns!
I thought there might be some way to manipulate the template within the template, to insert the {For} within an About-Distinguish-custom text type. Idk. But alas, that's where I'm at and I seem to be having trouble articulating the necessity, imo, for one. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 05:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Cinemaniac86: Okay, so we have Departure (disambiguation)#Films, and Departure (2015 film), and 3 other films by the same name (4 counting a film better known by an alternative title), and 10 total counting The Departure and plural Departures variants (but apparently no The Departures).
In this case, I would simply use
{{For|other films with the same title|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}}. I really can't see a good rationale for{{About-distinguish|the 2015 film|Departures (2008 film)}}, since neither the title nor the year are a match, and there is no actual reason to try to single out any other movie at all (award or no) among such a number of films. Anyone who is so aware of the details of obscure Oscars categories is already going to know it was a 2008 Best Foreign Film winner not a 2015 winner. I.e., there is far more confusion potential with Departure (1931 film), Departure (1938 film), and Departure (1986 film). Anyone who just encountered a "I really recommend the film Departure" or something will not know which it is, especially if it was in a context like a film class or some other venue that was not wholly focused on recent releases. If The Departure (2015 film) or a Departures (2015 film) also existed (or something like "Chicken Nuggets of Doom, a 2015 Elbonian film re-titled Departure in some markets"), those would also be very likely confusion candidates.But there are already too many to call them out specifically in a hatnote.
{{For|other films with the same or similar titles|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}}is really what is needed (without any other DAB hatnote). And while it doesn't apply to this specific obscure indy film, for many films there could also be a directly related soundtrack album, novel, video game, sequel, earlier or remake film version, derived TV series, overall franchise article, or something else to disambiguate from the 2015 (or whatever year) film.Maybe there could be a use case for a
{{About-distinguish-for}}, I don't think Departure (2015 film) is that use case. And while it would be easy to create such a template, if it does not see [appropriate] use, it will just get deleted at WP:TFD. Wikipedia's been disambiguating things for 23+ years, and has done so fine without such a template, so it's unlikely to prove useful. It's important to remember that these hatnotes exist only to help readers be sure they have arrived at the right article when they just guess at a title, or click on something that provides the title but insufficent context for that person to positively identify it among the alternatives. A purpose they do not serve is trying to "educate" or PoV-sway readers with an editorial opinion about what is most popular or important or notable among things with kinda-similar names from different time periods. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
June thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in June! - Today we have a centenarian story (documentation about it by Percy Adlon) and an article that had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistent link-appearance behavior
editHey SMcCandlish, I'm fixing {{Xtn}}'s appearance in dark mode, and I'm not sure I understand the hidden comment left there. Does {{Xtn/sandbox}} work? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Snowmanonahoe: Well, the HTML comment seems to indicate that without
color: initial, various of these xt-family of templates do not have consistent link-coloring behavior. As for dark mode, I'm not sure which dark mode you mean. I don't see a "dark mode" option in the desktop version (in Vector Legacy, which is what I use). Regardless, this CSS stuff would probably be better moved to a TemplateStyles page at this point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- See mw:Reading/Web/Accessibility for reading/Updates/2024-04 for more information on dark mode. It's not on Vector legacy. As for the hidden comment, the part I don't understand is what "consistent link-coloring behavior" means. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what's unclear about it. It means links will not be colored consistently. At this distant a remove, I'm not certain under what conditions that problem arose (i.e. whether it was consistently between templates in that group, or consistently from context to context using the same template). But it did arise, and thus the fix was implemented.
I would think the thing to do would be to have
color: initialapplied by default, and override it selectively for particular conditions in which whatever custom result you want to apply under those particular conditions has been well-tested.I'm highly skeptical that a specific color such as
color: blackshould ever be set, since it incorrectly presupposes that the conditions of the surrounding block will be known at all times and will be consistent from one context to another, which is not correct (though when it is wrong will probably not be very often). While we can be certain that general running text in an article is going to look a particular way, we have no way to predict what a particular templated condition is going to look like (various templates colorize blocks of text as to background, text color, or both). And these xt-type templates aren't for article text anyway, but generally for use in internal documentation.When
initialis assigned to a non-inherited propery, likedisplay, it defaults to the CSS spec's default. Wheninitialis assigned to an inherited property likecolor, it inherits the value most recently defined for that context in the stylesheet stack (if there is one, otherwise it gets the CSS-spec default or perhaps the browser default, if they different, and depending on the browser). There must have been a specific reason that both unset andinheritwere not getting the job done properly in this case, but I wouldn't recall what the specifics were after so long. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what's unclear about it. It means links will not be colored consistently. At this distant a remove, I'm not certain under what conditions that problem arose (i.e. whether it was consistently between templates in that group, or consistently from context to context using the same template). But it did arise, and thus the fix was implemented.
- See mw:Reading/Web/Accessibility for reading/Updates/2024-04 for more information on dark mode. It's not on Vector legacy. As for the hidden comment, the part I don't understand is what "consistent link-coloring behavior" means. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Help:Searching
editHi, I asked about this in the talk page, but no one answered - seeing as you're the one who wrote the original clarification of All: vs all: could you please give that talk section a read? I'd have requested an edit to the page, but I'd rather someone else confirm first. – 2804:F14:809B:301:18CD:9D72:3518:7DDA (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @2804:F14:809B:301:18CD:9D72:3518:7DDA: Answered at Help talk:Searching#Help:Searching#All:. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Answered your answer. – 2804:F1...18:7DDA (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 63
editThe Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024
- One new partner
- 1Lib1Ref
- Spotlight: References check
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
edit
|
"Dutch sense": yes, I'm Dutch. Compliments for the effort! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
- But what syrup should I use? :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
July thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Redirect-for
edit ResolvedIs it okay if I create {{redirect-for}} as a redirect to {{redirect}}?
I tried that name based on the pattern of {{redirect-distinguish}} and {{redirect-distinguish-for}}. I was surprised that it wasn't correct and it took me a while to realize that the template I was looking for was named simply {{redirect}}.
I'm asking because it looks like you were involved in deleting a previous page at that name, and I'm not familiar with the context in which you made that decision. Jruderman (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Jruderman: I answered this earlier (several days ago) but for some reason the reply didn't save. Anyway, I can't see a problem with
{{redirect-for}}redirecting to{{redirect}}. However, also create a{{redirect for}}version, since the hyphenation in the original is actually ungrammatical, and we've been steadily moving away from template names with unnecessary hyphens in them, for several years now. That is, it's much more likely for someone to take a blind guess at "redirect for" than "readirect-for", the latter of which doesn't actually make sense in English. If you go to the store for cookies you don't "go-to the store-for cookies". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)- Done and done.
{{redirect for}}and{{redirect-for}}. Jruderman (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)- Bueno. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done and done.
Closure at CrowdStruck
edit DoneOnce we think we're ready, are you willing to analyze the discussion and perform the closure?
I think you'd be great: you have a background in IT, you know your way around policy-based and non-policy-based arguments, you have a sense for what's good procedure, you have the page-mover right that lets you move articles without breaking their talk-page archives, and you haven't commented yet.
It's been a bit less than 7 days, but we've had lots of participation and I'd really like Wikipedia to have a good title for this current event. Jruderman (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- In theory; just a matter of whether I'm around at the right time, I guess. RMs usually do run for 7 days, though with the structure of this one being unusual, a little longer wouldn't hurt. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: Commentary is still coming in, within the current day (as of this posting). Will try to remember to look again tomorrow. It's been over the requisite 7 days since the RM was opened but obviously less than that with regard to the "Motion to conclude" subthread, so better to let it run for a while. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping an eye on this. I agree that it isn't quite time. Jruderman (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- We might be ready now, finally, after two weeks. Thanks in part to you and @Soni: for pushing us to reset a week ago. Jruderman (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I will start poring over it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Closed, and with considerable analysis. There's clearly not a "this is the name we should move to" consensus yet, but enough questions involved do have a consensus that the list of possibilities can be sharply narrowed for round 3. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're a true consensus shepherd. Please join the "Believing True Things (on Wikipedia)" Discord server. You've earned your WikiStar. Jruderman (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'll have to pass. I have no patience for live/interruptive e-media. I've tried that stuff since all the way back in the IRC and ICQ days, and it just drives me nuts, so I don't use Discord or anything like it, unless I have to for some client-related business reason, and even that's going to be curtailed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're a true consensus shepherd. Please join the "Believing True Things (on Wikipedia)" Discord server. You've earned your WikiStar. Jruderman (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Closed, and with considerable analysis. There's clearly not a "this is the name we should move to" consensus yet, but enough questions involved do have a consensus that the list of possibilities can be sharply narrowed for round 3. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I will start poring over it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- We might be ready now, finally, after two weeks. Thanks in part to you and @Soni: for pushing us to reset a week ago. Jruderman (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping an eye on this. I agree that it isn't quite time. Jruderman (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: Commentary is still coming in, within the current day (as of this posting). Will try to remember to look again tomorrow. It's been over the requisite 7 days since the RM was opened but obviously less than that with regard to the "Motion to conclude" subthread, so better to let it run for a while. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
For the third round, would it be acceptable to propose a rename to "2024 CrowdStrike-related Windows system outages", or should we stick with open-ended? I think that one has widespread support but it's only been on the table for one or two days. What do you see as the top candidates or top open questions requiring consensus? Jruderman (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do a one-option RM in this case again, unless and until source research has been done that establishes some particular phrase as the most common. Frankly, that kind of tedious trawling through sources is what needs to happen first and foremost, to see whether such a most-common phrase has emerged. If it has not, then my general sense is that options along the lines "2024 Crowdstrike IT outages" or "2024 Crowdstrike system outages" are most likely to gain consensus. Options like "2024 Crowdstrike IT system outages" are somewhat redundant. "2024 Crowdstrike-[something] IT outages" were seen as long-winded and were often contentious (especially "-triggered" or "-caused", less so "-related", but it was objected to as wishywashy or too vague to be very meaningful). And options that include "Windows", "Microsoft", or "Azure", or a more specific date, did not have much support and in several cases some direct opposition. But if it came to a scenario where still no common name can be determined, then a list that includes most such options would be hard to fault, and would mostly prevent the problem of people injecting their own variants yet again and confusing matters too much to assess a clear consensus. Just list and number (or letter) all the plausible ones and see which emerges with the most support and most sensible reasoning in support of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good comment, want to add it to the main discussion as an Involved editor? Jruderman (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've already added a pointer to it at the article talk page, and I'm not an "Involved" editor; that's kind of the point. I'm an uninvolved closer who's made some particular recommendations for moving forward in a way that's likely to attain a consensus instead of a round 4, round 5, etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good comment, want to add it to the main discussion as an Involved editor? Jruderman (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
DoneHi, I see you're a member of WP:Anthropology, would you be interested in joining a sub project on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- A taskforce/workgroup about that would be a good idea probably. It's not a subfield in which I do a whole lot of reading, but I have some interest in it particularly with regard to Gaelic and broader Celtic folklore, as well as modern Internet memetics as a folkloric subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, personally I'm most interested in African traditional oral history, I'd recommend Jan Vansina's Oral tradition as history [28] Kowal2701 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have that one in my e-book pile, though haven't gotten around to it yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It might make sense to merge the bibliography and ‘sources for people interested but unfamiliar’ sections, although I really like the way you’re formatting it Kowal2701 (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Kowal2701: Yep, already working on it. I didn't notice the sectional redundancy until just after that edit. I'm merging them, and fleshing out the citations with
{{cite book}}, etc., so they are easily re-usable in articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)- Sounds good Kowal2701 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. A bit tedious, but it may prove helpful, especially given the number of workgroup participants with interest in the areas covered by those bibliography entries (esp. Africa, but I saw someone specifically mention Homeric, too). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- yeah I've messaged loads of people and a few said they're interested but not knowledgeable enough about it, and it'll be good for newcomers to wikipedia when they browse wikiprojects for the first time Kowal2701 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. A bit tedious, but it may prove helpful, especially given the number of workgroup participants with interest in the areas covered by those bibliography entries (esp. Africa, but I saw someone specifically mention Homeric, too). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good Kowal2701 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Kowal2701: Yep, already working on it. I didn't notice the sectional redundancy until just after that edit. I'm merging them, and fleshing out the citations with
- It might make sense to merge the bibliography and ‘sources for people interested but unfamiliar’ sections, although I really like the way you’re formatting it Kowal2701 (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have that one in my e-book pile, though haven't gotten around to it yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, personally I'm most interested in African traditional oral history, I'd recommend Jan Vansina's Oral tradition as history [28] Kowal2701 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Nina Dobrev has an RfC
edit DoneNina Dobrev has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anthony Whitaker (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
edit | Happy First Edit Day! Hi SMcCandlish! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |  |
Nitpicky
editAbout this edit summary: There's only one Clause in that sentence. Whether we should put a comma between the Phrases "a correct name for A, B, and C" and "or a valid name for D and E" probably depends less on rules and more on our best guess at whether people might misread the phrases as "a correct name for A, B" and "[either] C or a valid name for D and E". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was using "clause" in the vague sense, as a shorthand, not being linguistically precise. They are really distinct complex items in a two-item list (item 1 is "a correct name for plants, fungi, and algae" and item 2 is "a valid name for animals and protozoa". Given that one of these items contains its own internal commas, an argument would actually be sensible for a semicolon between them, but a comma seems to suffice. No punctuation at all does not suffice, as it results in amibiguity which may be confusing and require the reader to stop, re-read the sentence, and consider how to to parse it to arrive at a sensible (and the probably intended) meaning. This stoppage is more likely for someone not already deeply familiar with the terms and their referents, but we have to assume that the average reader of any guideline here is not a subject-matter expert. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- If it weren't such a short section, I'd suggest a two-item bulleted list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't mind. A two-item bullet list can actually be helpful as a form of emphasis, and perhaps these two criteria really should be emphasized as elements of some precision. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to avoid any changes at all to that page until the RFC is settled. But perhaps next month, assuming it gets adopted, we'll make that formatting change. (If it doesn't get adopted, then we'll have to think about whether to preserve it in its {{historical}} state or to re-write it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. Chaos avoidance! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Confused) That doesn't sound like you. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 05:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm generally not one to change a text (meaningfully) that is under active discussion. While adding a comma for clarity isn't likely to arouse objection, reformatting stuff into a list might, so holding off on it seems reasonable. More broadly, much of what I do around here is preventing and defusing chaos. I tend not to run away from the chaos, but dump cold water on it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Confused) That doesn't sound like you. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 05:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. Chaos avoidance! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to avoid any changes at all to that page until the RFC is settled. But perhaps next month, assuming it gets adopted, we'll make that formatting change. (If it doesn't get adopted, then we'll have to think about whether to preserve it in its {{historical}} state or to re-write it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't mind. A two-item bullet list can actually be helpful as a form of emphasis, and perhaps these two criteria really should be emphasized as elements of some precision. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- If it weren't such a short section, I'd suggest a two-item bulleted list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Oral tradition taskforce
editI notice that you are a template editor, in the very old days I used to request help from John Carter and or Tim! both long gone, I was wondering if you could cast your gaze over the Oral tradition taskforce categories that frame the project. It would be appreciated. I think that I totally dont get the mix with the literature project at the same time, but then the whole thing seems fraught these days...
Any help would be appreciated - even if I got it totally wrong for that matter. JarrahTree 13:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content forks § Where was the WikiProject process fork move review and RfC?
edit
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content forks § Where was the WikiProject process fork move review and RfC?. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Red (slur) for deletion
edit DoneThe article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red (slur) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.August thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in August! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Consistent capitalization of racial descriptors "black" and "white"
editPer your comment here:
There is a consensus against capitalizing "Black" but lower-casing "white".
And previous discussions like this one:
Consensus against changing MOSCAPS to capitalize "Black" when used as a racial or ethnic descriptor.
Would you mind editing the protected article Reverse racism accordingly? Thanks. 2001:569:7F6A:800:11B5:41BD:6BA6:8324 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Will think about it. People like to argue and fight about this stuff, and my tolerance for "drama" is low right now. But yes, it either needs to be "Black and White" or "black and white", but not "Black and white" and certainly not "black and White". I would lean toward the uniformly capitalized option, since these are serving as ethnonyms (a form of proper name), and it's less jarring in a long string of those to have them all capitalized than to have one or two lowercased as if to denigrate them (e.g.: "East Asian, Hispanic, black, South Asian, Pacific and Austronesian, white, Semitic, and Native American demographics ..."). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
edit| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Vehicle hyphen/dash question
editI moved Holt gas electric tank to Holt gas-electric tank (it was already hyphenated within the article), but then I noticed Petrol–electric transmission, Diesel–electric powertrain, and Turbine–electric powertrain. Should that be Holt gas–electric tank instead? — BarrelProof (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: Methinks yes, since it's like "Mexico–Guatemala border", and "archaeology–ecology interdisciplinary study": a relationship between two independent/equal things. A gas–electric vehicle has two independent power sources, and there's no such thing as "gas[-]electricity" as a unitary but multiword term (like "static electricity") that would be hyphenated as a compound modifier ("a static-electrical dicharge"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! — BarrelProof (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
"Eight ball" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit DoneThe redirect Eight ball has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 1 § 8 Ball Pool until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 64
editThe Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024
- The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
- Wikimania presentation
- New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
September thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving article quality in September! - Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
edit DisregardYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-XX usage
edit DoneTemplate:Lang-en-XX usage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
October thanks
edit | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
the proposed merge/discuss template you added to WP:V
editHi, in Dec. 2023 you added a proposed merge template to the ABOUTSELF section of WP:V and linked to a discussion on the Talk page. I was curious about the discussion, so I clicked the link to read it, got a Talk page message that the topic couldn't be found, and then found it in the archives. I'm wondering if that merge template should be removed at this point, but I'm not that experienced an editor, so I'm hesitant to edit a policy page and figured I'd check with you instead. Since the topic interests you, I'll also note that in response to a question I asked at the Teahouse, Pigsonthewing added text to the corresponding BLPSPS section noting that "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example." Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- The merge clearly has consensus to happen, and should happen. I personally walked away from it because of WP:STONEWALL behavior by a single editor who refused to budge on some pet peeve, but this interpersonal problem should not hold up the merger of these redundant policy sections (three of them, actually, not two). Given the level of nit-picking over every single word in that policy material, I'm skeptical that Pigsonthewing's undiscussed addition would survive consensus scrutiny. It seems overly specific, like someting that would be in a list of examples in a guideline or essay, and is not policy wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone involved in the merge discussion walked away from it many months ago, so it's not clear to me that someone will now act on it. Should the Discuss link at least be updated so that it links to the archived discussion? Re: Pigsonthewing's addition, no doubt the wording could be improved, but I hope that consensus could be achieved for some related text. (It was intended to clarify the BLPSPS statement "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article," which I'd asked about in the context of a WP article about a notable academic, as I'd thought that policy meant that I couldn't use a self-published statement from a professional society about an award it gave.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the link in the tag should be updated. I might work up the drama stomach to just re-open the discussion, or even just WP:BOLDly do the merge and conforming revision and see whether I get reverted by the same lone hold-out. But I have a lot going on right now. As for Potw's material and the issue you and he were trying to solve with it, the real solution is rewriting the BLP-specific material entirely to be more clear, instead of leaving unclear wording in place, and tacking on explanatory exceptions, which will simply grow in number as needs for exception to the poorly worded original material arise. It likely that the revision already covered by the merge discussion would obviate this problem anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've updated the Discuss link. No rush on however you choose to follow up. If you do reopen the discussion, I may chime in about how the proposed text reads to someone who isn't as experienced and is trying to make sense of and abide by policies. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Curious what it is now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- This comment focuses on draft #3 but also applies to the existing version of the WP:V page. In point 1, I wondered whether "The material" refers to the material added to the WP page or to the source material, and similarly for "It" at the beginning of points 2 and 3. I'm pretty sure that standard grammar says that the referent is the SPS, and that's clearly the intended referent of "its" in point 4. But I question that interpretation, as it surprises me that there would be so many constraints on the contents of the source material, whereas the constraints make more sense to me as restrictions on material added to the WP article and the BLP footnote implies that the source material can contain a statement about third parties as long as it isn't introduced into the article using that source. So that's a long explanation for: I'd clarify the meaning of "The material" / "It." I've also sometimes wondered if my judgment about what constitutes "unduly self-serving" is OK, but I doubt that that can be easily defined, so I'll trust my judgment and hope that if it's off, someone else will remove what I added.
- Re: whether the revision obviates the problem I mentioned, I don't think it does, as my concern was really about the text of BLPSPS, not the text of BLPSELFPUB. BTW, I noticed that someone removed the merge template from the BLP page, so if you do reopen the discussion, you may want to reintroduce it there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- The referents clarity issue is probably easily soluble. But "unduly self-serving" is typical "leave it to an editorial consensus on a case-by-case basis" WP wording. Changing that to some kind of bright-line test of some type would be a very substantive alteration and entail a great deal of new debate. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've been participating in a long discussion about what does/doesn't fall under the definition of self-published (started at this WP:RSN discussion and continued at this WP:V talk page discussion; if you're interested in the disagreement, this is my attempt to capture the two main views in a possible RfC). A couple of exchanges got me thinking more about ABOUTSELF and whether the sentence that Pigsonthewing added to BLPSPS ("It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example") is actually an ABOUTSELF situation rather than a BLPSPS situation. In particular, do employees fall under an organization's "about themselves" in the first sentence of ABOUTSELF, or do they instead count as a third party in point 2 of ABOUTSELF? Do outside award recipients fall under the awarding organization's "about themselves," or do they instead count as a third party under point 2? I've also wondered whether third parties need to be personally identifiable to fall under point 2 (e.g., "my opponent" in a political campaign does, but "movie critics" might not, and "Americans" doesn't). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, that's a thornier set of V/RS questions than I usually get into, and am very distracted/stressed by the looming US election. The merge stuff (which still needs to be done) was just about consolidating duplicate material, smoothing out subtle conflicts between the version, and ensuring the final result has grammar that actually makes sense. It wasn't trying to make any substantive change of any kind (or weigh in one someone else's desire for a substantive change). It sounds to me like is new wrangling over definitions will need to be resolved before the merger discussion can resume, since the underlying wording at one or more of the places this wording "lives" might meaningfully change in short order. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm feeling anxious about the election too. I should have been clearer that I wasn't looking for answers to my questions but instead just noting additional questions that can arise for a not-so-experienced editor trying to make sense of the ABOUTSELF policy. Wishing you well, FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, that's a thornier set of V/RS questions than I usually get into, and am very distracted/stressed by the looming US election. The merge stuff (which still needs to be done) was just about consolidating duplicate material, smoothing out subtle conflicts between the version, and ensuring the final result has grammar that actually makes sense. It wasn't trying to make any substantive change of any kind (or weigh in one someone else's desire for a substantive change). It sounds to me like is new wrangling over definitions will need to be resolved before the merger discussion can resume, since the underlying wording at one or more of the places this wording "lives" might meaningfully change in short order. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've been participating in a long discussion about what does/doesn't fall under the definition of self-published (started at this WP:RSN discussion and continued at this WP:V talk page discussion; if you're interested in the disagreement, this is my attempt to capture the two main views in a possible RfC). A couple of exchanges got me thinking more about ABOUTSELF and whether the sentence that Pigsonthewing added to BLPSPS ("It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example") is actually an ABOUTSELF situation rather than a BLPSPS situation. In particular, do employees fall under an organization's "about themselves" in the first sentence of ABOUTSELF, or do they instead count as a third party in point 2 of ABOUTSELF? Do outside award recipients fall under the awarding organization's "about themselves," or do they instead count as a third party under point 2? I've also wondered whether third parties need to be personally identifiable to fall under point 2 (e.g., "my opponent" in a political campaign does, but "movie critics" might not, and "Americans" doesn't). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The referents clarity issue is probably easily soluble. But "unduly self-serving" is typical "leave it to an editorial consensus on a case-by-case basis" WP wording. Changing that to some kind of bright-line test of some type would be a very substantive alteration and entail a great deal of new debate. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Curious what it is now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've updated the Discuss link. No rush on however you choose to follow up. If you do reopen the discussion, I may chime in about how the proposed text reads to someone who isn't as experienced and is trying to make sense of and abide by policies. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the link in the tag should be updated. I might work up the drama stomach to just re-open the discussion, or even just WP:BOLDly do the merge and conforming revision and see whether I get reverted by the same lone hold-out. But I have a lot going on right now. As for Potw's material and the issue you and he were trying to solve with it, the real solution is rewriting the BLP-specific material entirely to be more clear, instead of leaving unclear wording in place, and tacking on explanatory exceptions, which will simply grow in number as needs for exception to the poorly worded original material arise. It likely that the revision already covered by the merge discussion would obviate this problem anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone involved in the merge discussion walked away from it many months ago, so it's not clear to me that someone will now act on it. Should the Discuss link at least be updated so that it links to the archived discussion? Re: Pigsonthewing's addition, no doubt the wording could be improved, but I hope that consensus could be achieved for some related text. (It was intended to clarify the BLPSPS statement "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article," which I'd asked about in the context of a WP article about a notable academic, as I'd thought that policy meant that I couldn't use a self-published statement from a professional society about an award it gave.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
edit DoneHello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Hanni Pham
edit DoneCould you kindly comment on Talk:Hanni_(singer). There is an issue which you appear to have some past experience in. Travelmite (talk) Travelmite (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, but just to clarify, at issue is the nationality line in the infobox. The article contradicts your apparent conclusion. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
ANI notice
edit Done There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Can I order...
edit
1 pair of partypants please, size M, in red [29]
Best typo this year. Knitsey (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Heh. I need to trademark PartiPants. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've just searched for partipants, it's amazing how many official documents came up lol. And now it's in my phone :( Knitsey (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe there's a style of semi-formal Business PartiPants for office parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might be onto a winner! Knitsey (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe there's a style of semi-formal Business PartiPants for office parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've just searched for partipants, it's amazing how many official documents came up lol. And now it's in my phone :( Knitsey (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Nationalist editing
editFollowing up from your comments on Hanni (singer) and also discovering a widespread problem in music artist pages, I have written a section under Wikipedia:Nationalist editing regarding my understanding of WP:BLP, in particular, about making presumptions about citizenship and ethnicity in biographies. It deserves to be reviewed and refined by those with a long-term interest in Wikipedia policy. Travelmite (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Travelmite: Tweaked it a little for clarity and such, but overall it appears sensible, policy-correct, and addressing common actual issues. Well done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
In all seriousness
editCan you recommend the brand of keyboard you are using? My current keyboard is terrible, but the one I had before it helped me type incredibly fast. Given how many words you wrote on Randy’s page, I was wondering if you could share your preference for keyboard brands. Viriditas (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)[30] Andre🚐 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas and Andrevan: I've tried some very expensive top-of-the-line gamer keyboards, and they all failed within 6 to 18 months. I find that I can type much faster on a keyboard with mechanical and tacticle (not "squishy", but also not loud "clicky") keys and a fairly short but not crazy-short key-press depth and pressure. So, that still translates to a gamer keyboard, specifically with ALPS Brown switches or the equivalent type from another manufacturer. Rather than burn $200+ on another high-end keyboard of this sort, I instead got two Redragon Devarajas (model K556RGB) for less than half the total price (MSRP supposedly about US$80 each, but street price really typically $60, and sometimes on sale – right now at the maker's own website for $48, though Amazon's $60 includes shipping if you have Prime). I'm actively using one, and keeping one as a backup.
This is the same approach I took with my vertical mouse, which has saved my right wrist. I use the cheap but effective Zelotes C18 (also re-branded as Anker by one vendor), with one in reserve for when I burn out the scroll wheel or whatever. (Don't be impressed with its "joystick"; it does no diagonal, so is no use for gaming, but can be programmed to output 4 arbitrary strings, so is handy as a macro device for tedious stuff like your postal address. They have a model without that feature, too.)
The first Devarajas keyboard has been doing very well so far for about a year, other than once every two weeks or so it seems to lose its USB connection and has to be unplugged and plugged back in (it's obvious when this happens since the RGB lights go out). If you don't like the RGB stuff, it can be turned off, but I find it helpful for low-light usage. I have the stock Apple squishy keyboard on my old Mac (mostly just a media server at this point) and find it frustrating. It definitely cuts my typing speed and accuracy. PS: There are probably wireless equivalents of the keyboard and mouse models I mentioned, but I prefer wired because I don't have to remember to recharge them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas and Andrevan: I've tried some very expensive top-of-the-line gamer keyboards, and they all failed within 6 to 18 months. I find that I can type much faster on a keyboard with mechanical and tacticle (not "squishy", but also not loud "clicky") keys and a fairly short but not crazy-short key-press depth and pressure. So, that still translates to a gamer keyboard, specifically with ALPS Brown switches or the equivalent type from another manufacturer. Rather than burn $200+ on another high-end keyboard of this sort, I instead got two Redragon Devarajas (model K556RGB) for less than half the total price (MSRP supposedly about US$80 each, but street price really typically $60, and sometimes on sale – right now at the maker's own website for $48, though Amazon's $60 includes shipping if you have Prime). I'm actively using one, and keeping one as a backup.
- +1 the vertical mouse and the wrist thing. I have a Nulea M504. What also saved my wrist and improved my wpm was switching to the wikt:ortholinear layout Andre🚐 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nulea M504, even cheaper! How does it perform? I should probably have another backup device, since I'm using the other Zelotes on the Mac now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I like it. I had an Anker one before this and this one has outlasted it so far. It has a configurable color LED which isn't very useful but decorative, but more importantly, you can adjust the sensitivity with a button press, and it also has hardware back and forward rocker buttons. Plus, it works without any config or software in Linux Andre🚐 23:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cool. I think I will order one, just because I'm not 100% satisfied with the scroll wheel on the Zelotes. It's good to have options. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I like it. I had an Anker one before this and this one has outlasted it so far. It has a configurable color LED which isn't very useful but decorative, but more importantly, you can adjust the sensitivity with a button press, and it also has hardware back and forward rocker buttons. Plus, it works without any config or software in Linux Andre🚐 23:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nulea M504, even cheaper! How does it perform? I should probably have another backup device, since I'm using the other Zelotes on the Mac now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
edit DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Street notability
editHi, for my benefit, can you link to the policy/guidance which shows my interpretation of street notability is “flat-out wrong”. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't address you in particular, but the notion that a street "inherits" notability, "rubbing off" on it from loosely associated things that in their own right might be notable (and not all the buildings in that case qualify; few of them seem to). From WP:N:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
The street fails this test, even for a temporary notability presumption, because the coverage is not significant (it is not about the street per se but about particular buildings that happen to have addresses on that street. The buildings are [sometimes] what is actually notable."Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. ... [M]ultiple sources are generally expected.
This street appears in a whole host of tertiary sources like locational databases, but has virtually no secondary coverage that is about the street itself not incidentally mentioning the street when relating information about an actually notable subject like a particular historic building or event."Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
That rules out material produced by the municipal government or a broader-jurisdiction parent body. Also excludes any material promotional of the street or neighborhood (e.g. from local commerce organisations, etc.).If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
Yep; this is clearly not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE matter, and deserves encyclopedic but concise coverage, at the article on the municipality containing the street.No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
The street as such lacks this coverage, as do most streets that are not major thoroughfares or of some special historical significance in their own right.Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time: ... Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability ....
The street has brief bursts of bare-mention coverage because of particular buildings being listed as historical landmarks for preservation, but the coverage is not even about the street but about the buildings.l The street lacks the "sustained coverage" unto itself.Whether to create standalone pages: ... Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context ...
, e.g. the article on the municipality in which the street is located.What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub.
The community is generally against perma-stubs unless there is a compelling reason to create one (e.g. to complete a finite series of articles in which a missing one would be confusing for the readership).
- From WP:Notability (geographic features):
Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: ... navigation guides, ... census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished.
This material is not worded as clearly as it should be, but is obviously about tertiary and passing-mention sourcing, as distinct from significant secondary-source coverage.Engineered constructs: ... Topic notability for ... streets ... may vary, and may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline.
This particular street does not.No inherited notability: Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.
The first sentence stands alone. The short example list is not intended to be exhaustive, and obviously the principle also applies to buildings, parks, subway entrances, or another other thing that might in sources be incidentally associated with a particular street as a location but is not producing in-depth secondary RS coverage of the street itself.
- See also WP:NOTINHERITED. While that has an
{{Essay}}tag on it, it is like several others (WP:BRD, for starters) in that it has a roughly guideline level of community buy-in. - If you do not already deeply intuit the implications of all of the above and how it interrelates with various other guidelines and policies, then you should maybe not be doing deletion closures, at least not geographical ones. (Personally, I would not want to do them, because of the large number of considerations to juggle, especially when various SNGs like the one for geographic features are in play, coupled with the emotional extremity that often arises with regard to such subjects, frequently motivated by local/regional/national pride PoV. I probably have the experience level to do such closes properly, but I lack the stress tolerance.)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)- First off, I really appreciate the detailed reply - particularly on a day when rather more momentous events, for the US and the world, are taking place. That said, I don't share your interpretation. For me, a street isn't only the central thoroughfare, the strip of asphalt down the middle, it is also the buildings on it. As an example, the first sentence of Downing Street reads, "is a street in Westminster in London that houses the official residences and offices of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Chancellor of the Exchequer". I think trying to divorce the two creates an artificial distinction. Anyways, just for the record, I didn't attempt a deletion closure in this case, have never actually done any in the past, and don't plan to in the future. So if my interpretation is wrong, it won't matter at least in that regard. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about
editHey Mac, I thought you might want to be aware of this discussion (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Wikipedia's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate sub judice reasons).
While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? SnowRise let's rap 00:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeesh. That sounds really dreadful. This seems really problematic on multiple levels. I hope the disappeared article is available through some archival service (what with Wayback being under concerted attack for so long now). But the privacy matter seems more important here. I've been quietly arguing for some time that WMF has to stop blockading VPNs, for reasons like this. If you don't have PII to divulge, then governments don't try to twist your arm in the first place. I have the US election shitshow in my face at the moment, but maybe can look into this tomorrow. I don't have a lot of reach any longer, but my FB and LinkedIn pages probably hit the eyes of some who do on such matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've been coming to similar conclusions about the VPN issue of late, although I confess that the potential for abuse by vandals is a difficult concern to ignore at the same time. In any event, I agree that the PII issues is the much more serious and pressing of the issues, even if neither is exactly a trivial matter. And yes, I appreciate the timing could not be worse, but do consider looking into the matter further if time allows--few people here are more articulate than you, once you've made your mind up on how you feel about an issue. SnowRise let's rap 04:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
RFA
editWould you be so kind as to move this reply to the talk page? It's not really about the candidate, and will likely draw some responses, which are unlikely to be about the candidate. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Will think on it. I guess I won't pitch a fit if you refactor it that way. But it's half about the candidate, specifically about the closure review, that has several opposers up-in-arms against the candidate, displaying administrative management failure, i.e. being used too much for relitigation of the original question instead of examining whether the closer was in error. Maybe I can fork half of that comment to talk page, where it veers into more general matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: Done that split-up refactoring, keeping the pertinent part in "General comments" and the tangential part moved to the talk page. Good enough? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Very good, thanks. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Coolio. I should have thought more carefully about the venue. This is a stressy day in Yankeelandia .... — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Very good, thanks. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: Done that split-up refactoring, keeping the pertinent part in "General comments" and the tangential part moved to the talk page. Good enough? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)