Remsense

DYK for 2024 Suzhou knife attack

On 31 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2024 Suzhou knife attack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a knife attack in Suzhou, China, led to the deletion of hundreds of ultranationalist posts from social media platforms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Suzhou knife attack. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2024 Suzhou knife attack), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

And he appeared! What do you think of my short version of the life of Alexander Goehr? I was happy to include a link to an article by Brian Boulton, - we sang the Monteverdi Vespers on 1 September 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Gerda! I was just thinking the other day how there's a few fun Schoenberg GA targets—I was thinking Verklärte Nacht and Emancipation of the dissonance! Remsense ‥ 论 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! I thought of Erwartung. - Completely different topic: Christmas, BWV 91, would you have time to give it a GA review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

About the edit on the Byzantine Empire article

I apologize for the edit; I was unaware of the prior discussion and mistakenly assumed it hadn't been agreed upon. If you don't mind, could you please clarify the reason for its removal? :D Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure sure. The long and short of it is that GIFs above a certain length are bad for accessibility, and should be either replaced with still images or videos when appropriate. Moreover, I am not sure about the specifics, but there are also verifiability issues that can multiply the more information a single image attempts to contain. Remsense ‥ 论 12:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the response, apologies again for the edit Shuaaa2 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also Remsense, i didnt wanna open up another discussion here so its gonna be an unrelated question, but do you think i could make a map for the Kingdom of Italy under the Holy Roman Empire (this article: Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) also? Shuaaa2 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't apologize! And wow, that Odoacer map looks great, good job! Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Physics

Please look again at the recent changes you reverted on the "Physics" page. You may see that the changes addressed a serious scholarly deficiency in the article. Previously, the brief presentation of Aristotle's work was fragmented in a non-pedagogic way, links to other relevant articles were missing, and there were naive misstatements about his influence in modern schooling. This problem was sorted out by collecting and rearranging the paragraphs on this ancient but important area of work. Links were added to connect this article to the more specialized pages. Someone else added a "decorative picture" (your words) that I did not get around to removing, but rather asked the editor to consider taking away. Would you take a look, and perhaps agree that the text modifications upgrade the tone and usefulness of the article? Qwerty123uiop (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Uwe Holmer on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
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 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting some of my edits with "Not An Improvement" Tag

User: Remsense, why do revert some of my edits with "Not an improvement" Tag? CryingSulfur (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Because they were not improvements: they added your own particular style convention to a wide number of articles without any prior discussion or explanation. Remsense ‥ 论 04:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I just indicate ∞ symbol which indicates the largest city/town in every province. CryingSulfur (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, and I've never seen that symbol used as such an indicator before. It's got an existing meaning, and using it in a new way is confusing. Plus, you added "City" to the names of many cities, which isn't necessary or how we name them on Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 04:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There has been prior discussion, consensus is against changing naming conventions and against adding statistical trivia everywhere. CMD (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Demographics chart of pre-WW1 era Europe

Why did you delete well sourced demographics chart with high quality references, which are important in many topics?

This action can only be interpreted as "WP: I just don't like it." Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it --Mandliners (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it can be interpreted as an application of our image policy. It is a poor quality graphic that cannot be read unless you expand it to fill the screen and there is no need to present this information in an image, rather than a more accessible paragraph or table (which is what the 2005 source for the Entente and Central powers does). Moreover, it synthesizes the 1911 (!) Britannica with said 2005 source, which is unacceptable and conflates different populations at different dates as equivalent. Remsense ‥ 论 09:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What does it mean poor quality graphics, according to which criteria? Most of the Wiki images and charts can be considered as graphically poor quality. Why should we put the info in a table, which takes up too much screen space? Which different date are you talking about ?--Mandliners (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a ton of wasted space, and the numbers are very small. Text and numbers baked into images are not accessible to those using screen readers, for example. (Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept.) Just because a lot of inaccessible, poor quality images already exist does not mean we should gleefully keep adding more. The 2005 source provides figures for 1913: do I need to explain why it's a problem to present these alongside figures sourced from the 1911 Britannica? Remsense ‥ 论 09:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case we can delete most of the charts on Wikimedia.--Mandliners (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is even more fallacious than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in my estimation. Remsense ‥ 论 09:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see the mandatory guidelines regarding this on Wikipedia. If there are none, then this is simply arbitrary on your part. Mandliners (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Mandliners The correct place to discuss this issue is the article talk page (where other editors can chip in). I suggest you or Remsense move it there. But FWIW, I agree with Remsense's analysis and I rather suspect that most other editors will do so too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

It is simple. If there is a mandatory guideline / rule exactly about this, I will accept immediately his suggestions, but if it is just an arbitrary act, than I will oppose it. Mandliners (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The mandatory guideline is that article content is established by wp:consensus among editors at the article talk page. For a longer explanation, ask at the WP:Teahouse. But specifically, WP:SYNTH seems to apply and that is also a mandatory guideline.

Your challenge will not be resolved here, you need to take to the article talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's incredibly childish to insist on special treatment because someone happened to notice something you were doing was wrong and countered it. I've offered several reasons clearly rooted in site policy and guidelines, and you've offered nothing: given your initial try here, it's funny that all you have left is WP:ILIKEIT. Remsense ‥ 论 07:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

So you don't find a single rule to support your action, now you come up with the "consensus" thing....

It is still an "I don't like it" category on your part. Mandliners (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made at least two distinct arguments citing site policy. Acknowledge them or I won't reply further. Remsense ‥ 论 08:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

So you can not provide any proofs for exact rules, thus you flee from the discussion. Okay. Mandliners (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If I must repeat myself:

1. WP:SYNTH – it is trivial that citing figures for different years but silently presenting them as uniform figures representing a single point in time is an improper synthesis of sources (i.e. original research that is simply forbidden on Wikipedia). It's also straightforwardly dishonest and lazy.
2. MOS:ACCIM – which I've already quoted directly above, so I'll just do so again: Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept.

There is no argument you've made in defense of the chart more substantive than WP:ILIKEIT, for comparison. Remsense ‥ 论 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlitn

Template:Tlitn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

AM. Civil war revert

Hello, I reverted your revert because it misrepresents what happened in western VA and its history. It was the only border state that had civilian voting in Confederate elections. It was more supportive of the CSA than wither KY or MO. The technicality of its creation in 1863 does not alter that. Your reversion distorts the history of the state and its function in the war.Dubyavee (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's just misleading to the reader who might interpret the phrasing as there being a separate WV govt loyal to the CSA. Remsense ‥ 论 14:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cao Wei grammar edit

This is absolutely a non issue and I am probably in the wrong here but I can't fathom how the phrase 'another regent in Sima Yi' is grammatically correct? It's the 'in' - Sima Yi is the regent being referred to so why would the regent be 'in' him? I apologize if I am misunderstanding anything here. EnvinyatarElessar (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Hi! Long time no speak, but I will have to agree with EE here. Sima Yi was one of the regents along with Cao Shuang.

The bigger issue here is that the statement The authority of the ruling Cao family dramatically weakened following the deposition and execution of Cao Shuang, a regent for the dynasty's third emperor Cao Fang. Beginning in 249, another regent Sima Yi gradually consolidated state authority for himself and his relatives is not very correct, as it does not demonstrate the link between the rise of the house of Sima (Sima Yi) and the fall of the royal house of Cao (Cao Shuang & Cao Fang). Through the coup known as the Incident at the Gaoping Tombs, Sima Yi achieved to despose and execute Cao Shuang, consolidating power for his family, eventually leading to the rise of the Sima-led Jin dynasty. (talk page stalker) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Query

Do you understand what's going on at List of Neolithic cultures of China? A huge flurry of large edits from multiple editors—is this just table formatting? Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I did some tinkering on that table but decided not to intrude midstream—while I may be critical at the scope of inclusion, it seems innocuous enough even with the metatext—i'll swing around and make sure the table's editorially up to snuff when they've had their turn I reckon. Remsense ‥ 论 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

(This seems to have gotten lost in the reverts):

Thanks. It does seem a bit redundant alongside the table... perhaps it would work better as a template, akin to {{Rulers of the Ancient Near East}} – Aza24 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the Turkic winds—or were they Persian? Not sure! I'll take another look in a sec. While I've got your ear, I think there were also some other articles I wanted to ask for advice about...still haven't added my changes to the Zhuangzi article yet... Remsense ‥ 论 18:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries, happy to look at your work when you're ready. Speaking of the Zhuangzi, how would you feel about a move of Zhuang Zhou to Zhuang Zhou (philosopher)? I feel that the name "Zhuang Zhou" is so uncommon that its a disservice to readers to choose it. Xunzi was just moved for similar reasons, now we have Xunzi (philosopher) and Xunzi (book). Of course, the birthname would still redirect to the individual. Aza24 (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Aza24, well, about this regard, I believe it would only be valid if there were another Zhuang Zhou's for disambiguation purposes, otherwise I'm not really sure it'll be worthwhile, ngl. 177.105.90.42 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Emperor of China

Hey just saw you reverted my edit on the note on the Emperor of China page as unnecessary. I had originally written the entire note and simply added the extra words you reverted, because at least to me, if im using a year and saying that it only lasted 83 days, it would stand to reason that it was all in that year. By adding the "late 1915" and "1916", i was showing that it went over two calendar years. Didn't want to revert it without talking about it, and felt like too minor a change to leave on the talk page of that page. But just wanted to discuss it. Because it now feels misleading, which was the reason I wasn't happy with my original text. Basetornado (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The explicit mention that the Empire lasted into 1916 seems unimportant in that sentence. It seems fine the way it is. Remsense ‥ 论 12:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Would you be opposed to listing December 1915 instead than. That way it still clearly shows it wasn't just 1915. Basetornado (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I Saw your giraffe on your Profile

Hey There, I Know This Picture You put on your userpage 77.77.218.180 (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They're there to help. 🦒 Remsense ‥ 论 10:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That's sounds perfect 77.77.218.180 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Technical help?

As we edit the same topics enough for you to know, I am strong on policies and substance but weak on the technical side.

I know you are an experienced page mover.

I have malformed a move request here. How do I fix it so I can properly initiate the request? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

After help from another experienced page-moving editor, I have rectified my technical errors. So all is resolved. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Aw! I gotta be quicker with this stuff, clearly. Remsense ‥ 论 16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Value theory on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
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 18:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

For corrections again, >Cultural Revolution

As much as I do believe that the revert did in fact, have some merit, one source was the New York Times, which while it isn't an academic source per say, it contains direct quotes from Song herself, and the source it cites is a Chinese one, and is likely biased in this regard, so directly citing it in the case seemed negligent. The New York Times, though not academic in nature, is still a trust-worthy source. As for the second source, ChinaFile is still, while not a well-known or directly academic source, is written by a Pulitzer-Prize winning researcher and 'Senior Fellow for China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,' and is the most academic and easily prevalent source on the topic that I could find, as suiting the excerpt which I wrote. While neither are academic, at least directly, they are the best sources we have on this specific topic, and ChinaFile is used as a source on the Song Bingbing Wikipedia page. Kingofmapps (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Crucially, the source was a post on a New York Times blog, not an article in the newspaper itself. Like I said, I think the sources are borderline, but it would really be nice to have something peer reviewed cited. I'll try to look for something ASAP, it shouldn't be difficult and I have access others may not. Remsense ‥ 论 14:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see, nevermind then, at least on that point, I didn't realize that. I'll see if I can find anything that fits this particular section, and notify me if you get any sufficient results on your effort. Kingofmapps (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Would this fit the first citation, then? It's from the International Academic Forum but I don't know enough to see if that is a prestigious or academic organization at all, but it speaks on the topic.

https://papers.iafor.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/filmasia2016/FilmAsia2016_32624.pdf Kingofmapps (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflection&oldid=1248038200

please read these rules : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Besides violating the General Rules about Reverting, you did not cite a specific wiki-rule, that any revert requires. Walter Tau (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's an essay, and not one I agree with or find compelling. In reality, there's nothing different between adding and removing content: you thought the addition would be helpful for some reason, and I disagreed and gave my reason. I'm not demanding you give a reason based in site policy for the addition, because that's beside the point. Policy doesn't guide every editorial decision on the site, and you don't get to ignore the reasoning of other editors on basic issues because they're not pointing to some specific guideline. It's bad writing, and I intervened to reverse it. There's nothing added for the reader by making an arbitrary 5-item list into a 6-item list, and you've failed to make a single positive reason for your addition. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting

Reason is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B._Fairbairn B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason grounded in site policy cited for the removals, or any consensus or previous discussion concerning these unilateral changes you're making across an entire class of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

RE: "you should probably get consensus before making unilateral removals across an entire class of articles, seriously."

Now you are talking sense. All I am doing is trying to make 'Country' pages about countries, not about US relations.

That's fine. You just have to get consensus for it, maybe ask on WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) or WT:WikiProject Countries and give other editors a chance to participate before you enforce your perspective on a large number of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense B. Fairbairn (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Your revert of an updated photo

Hi, not sure why you think my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Germans&diff=prev&oldid=1248148092) was an unexplained replacement. I wrote "updated a portrait" and still think that it makes sense to replace a photo of 2007 by one of 2023. Barbasca (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

A photo being newer doesn't necessary make it better for use in an encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if you should think that it was the case here your justification said something different. Barbasca (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese Macau

Hi! May I just hear your comments from the flag of Macau municipality. The original flag at File:Bandeira do Leal Senado.svg contains many inaccuracies and the added details in the new flag correct so. ~~ J. Dann 06:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Your version is more detailed, but it is not necessarily an improvement for illustrative purposes on an encyclopedia, especially given it is usually displayed at very small sizes. The sole functional difference is the crown, which if well-sourced could be easily added to the original. Remsense ‥ 论 06:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope we may reach a consensus on striving for WP:RELIABILITY, considering the File:Bandeira do Leal Senado.svg is, in due respect, wrong according to laws promulgated by then government. ~~ J. Dann 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Even so in terms of "illustrative purpose", the new flag is still sufficiently well presented even in very small size. ~~ J. Dann 06:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Maps

Sorry, only just saw your question on Commons. I've replied there. Kanguole 13:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Images

Hello, the two images i added where of two greatly admired Ethiopian novelist, it would be of good faith and nature adding them, in addition i cited the sources, although Giyorgis of Segla is a key figure in Ethiopian literature, the two individuals i added dwarf Giyorgis of Segla in reputability in modern Ethiopian atmosphere. I am figuring that due to that adding an extra image wouldn't hurt and taking out of the Giyorgis of Segla template! CtasACT (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The literature section definitely needs expanding and as such I think it would serve a good benefit to add 1 more additional image of good value, while the other serves as a replacement! CtasACT (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we should avoid adding galleries of images to such broad articles in most situations. Of course there are many important Ethiopian authors, but it is very easy to over-illustrate articles when every potentially deserving subject is illustrated—which ultimately dilutes the value of what images are there. Remsense ‥ 论 03:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Philosophy is a great example of an article with the perfect level of illustration—notably, at no point does it need to double up in one spot. Generally, that's a technique best reserved for when images are related to each other and essentially comprise one illustration. Remsense ‥ 论 03:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. The only viable way to reasonably add the images would be relatability towards the section while being of a good space to not be overcrowded! And currently the section needs citations and expansion before that happens. CtasACT (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, so would you say if the time comes, I am able to expand it, since in my view the literature article needs expanding, would it be so appropriate to add the 2 listed images? CtasACT (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE Moxy🍁 18:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, it hints that "generally" most FA or GA articles don't have a cluster of images. I viewed India and the Japan articles since they are featured, and India has presented lots of clustered images and Japan with only a small 2 clustered images. Although this is not a rebuttal, I think my expansion and reduction of other images with the text and citations growing in number and merging the sub-sections into on section as seen in other articles, this case would be justified. But as you noted any other cluster of images may not be appropriate. CtasACT (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

one* CtasACT (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Display of a fragmenteded image gallery on mobile

India is an accessibility nightmare and in general does not follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries norms ..not even WP:COUNTRYLEAD..that said it may still meet general FA norms today. See WP:COUNTRYSIZE for the style most countries have (as FA-GAs). A few have cluters, but in general only when there is a comparison being made Canada#Early 20th century or figurehead display Australia#Government and politics Moxy🍁 19:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

deleted messages on my talk page

hi, why did you delete my responses to someones message on my talk page Waltuh1015 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want an answer to your question: editors keep watchlists of pages they care about, and see edits that are made to them in real time. Don't really feel like I have to answer your questions given the edits you were making: I'm doing it so others don't have to. Remsense ‥ 论 06:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

i don't understand why that has anything to do with you deleting my responses? Waltuh1015 (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that this seems to be not in line with WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS which dictates exceptions on editing other's comments. ~~ J. Dann 07:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I hit a button too fast assuming the editor who had been adding racial slurs to pages in the previous minutes was continuing to do so. I do not feel the need to apologize for or meditate on an error like that. Remsense ‥ 论 07:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky

I saw your revert. What is the "idiomatic sense" of the phrase a number of, and what additional meaning does it give beyond several or some? Having such a phrase repeatedly used throughout a Featured Article jars somewhat in my opinion, hence the removal. Thanks for your consideration. John (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I see a number of as a perfectly acceptable phrasing for use in formal English; I do not presently understand the objection one would have other than one resulting from an overly literal interpretation—in my view, an interpretation beyond the useful limits of the figurative/literal dichotomy itself. In that sense, I misspoke when I described its use as "idiomatic"—there's no real argument I see for how the phrase could be misinterpreted as meaning "zero or more". Remsense ‥ 论 10:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. Good writing is concise; it uses the fewest words possible to carry the meaning. It avoids even the potential of ambiguity, and it avoids using the same lumbering phrase repeatedly (four times!) in one piece. FAs are supposed to be well written. If you honestly feel your revert was an improvement to the article, we can leave it there. John (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally, I very much agree with you; I really strive toward concision and parsimony in my writing for the encyclopedia. However, I feel there are certain instances where I find myself striving towards those things dogmatically, where I can't actually independently justify why the one word is superior to a short phrasal equivalent. This would be one of those cases I suppose. Equally as much, thank you for approaching and engaging! Remsense ‥ 论 10:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Idle bystander remark: I once read an amusing decryption of political candidate's speech, the relevant extract being

A number of constituents have asked... = one.

A significant number of constituents have asked... = two

A large number of constituents have asked... = three

Many constituents have asked... = four

So I would have to agree that "a number of" is WP:WEASEL. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thx for help on oversight Susbush (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove my 1 sentence on the "Outer Manchuria" page?

It was not a book review, I listed three books which cover the Russian conquest by intrigues of Outer Manchuria which became the Russian Far East. I merely mentioned Stephan's book The Russian Far East because it goes over the intrigues and machinations to rename the region and its cities, villages rivers and other places with Russian names to cancel out the history of the Chinese there.

I merely mentioned that Stephan had the best coverage of this. I put back in the three reference notes and left the sentence deleted. I am the user Who-knows-nose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:6BF0:7E20:4115:C7D2:E597:69A0 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's generally necessary to specifically namedrop historiographical works in articles about historical events. If they're not actually cited, they could be listed in a Further reading section. Remsense ‥ 论 14:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on oversight

@Remsense Thanks for helping me at the village pump on oversight. Now the IP address is suppressed (invisible). Susbush (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)