User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 103

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

→

Archive 110

June 2015

Please comment on Talk:New Mexican English

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Mexican English. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What you said

... about the section of Wikipedia which I try hard to avoid - not always successfully so: I support fully, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Upstate New York

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Upstate New York. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

 Done

This discussion, Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#The inclusion of 'Commons', 'Wikiquote', and 'Wikisource' on appropriate templates, has now been converted into an RfC on the same page. Given that you took the time to comment on this issue previously, I thought you would want to know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Small Adirondack Blue comment

In case you are not familiar, and I wasn't, they are potatoes but, perhaps, potatoes are not the best example to use as the they are not of a species that is known for being pointy.

I genuinely respect the work that you do with the animal breed articles and didn't consider that it would have been any way appropriate to have left my pointy (though I think justified) comments on the Russian black page.

Yes i guess I am perhaps happily "arguing that it's not disambiguation because we're not distinguishing one article from another" (at least that is in Wikipedia's terms. The policy states: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia." That, I believe, is the limit of the scope here.

In any case I think that Primary topic can be clearly seen in regard to various of the breeds that you have mentioned by simple reference to image searches as follows:

• "Russian Black Pied" clearly refers to cattle
• "German Red Pied" clearly refers to cattle
• "Chinese black pied" clearly refers to cattle
• "Belarus Black Pied" clearly refers to pigs
• "Bentheim Black Pied" clearly refers to pigs

In each case absolutely no form of disambiguation is necessary for the sake of Wikipedia's article disection purposes but because many readers may not know a pied animal from a pied piper. However, while disambiguation is not required, the clarification of topic subject (not relating to pipers etc.) is greatly appreciated. GregKaye 11:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being pointy, just pursuing an argument that doesn't need to be made there. WP:DAB's wording is poor. The word "disambiguation" existed before WP and has a meaning. WP:DAB applies that meaning broadly, "resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous". But it then adds an inaccurate "in other words"-style aside that inaccurately restates it in a far more narrow way: "when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia". WP:PRECISION policy exists, and we do in fact use natural and sometimes parenthetic disambiguation to comply with that policy, so this proves that the aside is incorrect. The obvious fix for it is one that I'll go make right now.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent edit there. That certainly helps clear things up for me. I am just wondering whether something similar can be written into WP:AT to make more sense with the Michigan highway and Leeds North West contents. Just a thought. It might also be interesting to see if FrancisS reverts you as he has been reverting me.

I am quite humoured that we have presented disambiguation as having a more precise meaning than it actually has. GregKaye 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Especially since it relates to WP:PRECISE. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestine grid

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Palestine grid. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Using the "Online Slang Dictionary" As A Reliable Source

Resolved

As noted in its "About" section:

• "The website is a wiki: logged-in users can submit terms, add definitions to terms, and edit existing definitions.
• "New content appears on the website immediately, without requiring editor or community permission."

It's therefore not a reliable source, and should not be used to reference anything here, ever. Cheers. Doc talk 08:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Essay pages aren't articles (nor portals or other encyclopedia content) subject to WP:V/WP:RS. It was a convenience link (not a citation) for anyone not familiar with the slang usage, to replace the incorrect link to the other meaning of "diva", The "WikiDivas" text change in place of that should suffice. I'd just chosen to replace one link with another instead of delete a link.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

 Done

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:UPC search link

 Done

Template:UPC search link has been nominated for merging with Template:UPC. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: red links in navboxes

SMcCandlish, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links withing the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I actually just noted over there that we already clearly have consensus for something along these lines (50% is enough; we don't need an additional "minimum of three" criterion, surely). I say let it close, and let the closer see if they agree we have consensus for at least that much. I don't think yet another proposal to vote on is going to be practical. If it turns out we do need one after all, I could support something along the lines of what I just posted, even if you insist on the "minimum of 3" point and the "stand-alone" point. My principal interest in this is stopping the abuse of navboxes as redlink farms, while not upsetting legit use for series and sets when we already have at least half of the series/set as blue links (whether to stand-alone articles or not).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing deletion argument

 Fixed

Hi SMcCandlish, the case for deleting Pardew Shuffle may speak for itself, but I thought I'd let you know your deletion argument didn't go through there. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Woops, fixed. Thanks for the note.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)