User talk:SMcCandlish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
No RfAs or RfBs reported by Cyberbot I since 7:25 10/11/2014 (UTC)

As of 2014-10-24 , SMcCandlish is Busy.
I might check Wikipedia, but I won't be actively participating or editing until 1 October 2015.

WikiStress level

Most recent poster here: Legobot (talk).

Contents

Old stuff to resolve eventually[edit]

Cueless billiards[edit]

Unresolved: Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.


Look at the main page[edit]

Unresolved: Katsura News added (with new TFA section) to WP:CUE; need to see if I can add anything useful to Mingaud article.

Some more notes on Crystalate[edit]

Unresolved: New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.

WP:SAL[edit]

Unresolved: Not done yet, last I looked.


Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready[edit]

Unresolved: Needs to be renewed, if I come back.

Your Credo Reference account is approved[edit]

Unresolved: Needs to be renewed, if I come back.

Circa[edit]

Unresolved: Need to file the RfC.

You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright[edit]

Unresolved: Need to fix William A. Spinks, etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.

Hee Haw[edit]

Unresolved: Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation.

One of the reasons gardens are walled[edit]

Unresolved: 'We really need an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide.... Still do! Good potential project!
You're right that my cleanup efforts have not been efficient when it comes to horses. (They have been in other areas, including donkeys, with direct cooperation from Montanabw, curiously enough, and in domestic cats, among others.) It is difficult to predict what projects will find article naming and categorization cleanup controversial, and on what points.

I understand the WP:RANDY problem, but I'm not part of it; WP:Manual of Style/organisms could not have been written by a Randy. One problem to me is that too many alleged experts treat everyone who disagrees with them about anything as a Randy, often very insultingly so. And by no means is every editor who claims expertise actually an expert; many, especially in biology projects, are simply fanciers, and others may have studied zoology or botany as an undergraduate, but that's it. I have a degree in cultural anthropology, but would never call myself an expert in that field. Large numbers of, e.g., WP:BIRDS editors don't even have that level of qualification, but will fight to the death to get their way on capitalization (and on a faulty basis – they continually claim that the fact that bird field guides capitalize common names means that the mainstream publishing world is honoring the IOU's convention, when in reality all field guides on everything have always capitalized this way, as ease-of-rapid-scanning emphasis, since at least the 1800s, long before IOU even existed; it's a coincidence, and they know this but pretend this fact was never raised.

Another related issue is that WP:Competence is required – not just competence in a particular field, but online community competence to work collaboratively toward consensus. Not all academics have this, and many are extremely competitive and debatory. Sometimes the only thing to do is not care if this sort leave the project (or even be happy that they've gone). The vast majority of expert editors are a boon to the project, but being such an expert is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in Wiki-opoly. As one example, several years ago, one alleged (and probable) expert on albinism was extremely disruptive at the page that is now Albinism in humans. He considered himself [writing live; I don't mean peer-reviewed joural articles he'd written] to be a reliable source, and basically refused to do the leg-work to provide source citations for the material he wanted to add, nor to show that material he wanted to remove was obsolete or otherwise wrong. I bent over backwards to try to get him to understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, but he just would not listen. Myself and others kept having to prevent him from making the well-source if imperfect article a mostly unsourced mess, and he eventually left the project is "disgust" at other editors' "stupidity", much to a lot of people's relief. The article today is very well sourced and stable (aside from frequent "ALBINOESES LOOK STOOPID" vandalism). The disruptive expert's absence was a boon. I feel the same way about WP:DIVA expert editors who threaten wiki-retirement, WP boycotts, editing strikes, mass editorial walkouts and other WP:POINTy nonsense. We all know that in reality academics have zero problem adapting to in-house style guides of whatever venue they're writing for. Pretending that doing it on WP is onerous is a abuse of WP as massively-multiplayer online debate game.

We really need an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide, to help prevent incoming specialists from falling into such pitfall patterns (not to mention the one identified at WP:SSF). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I did read this, started an unproductive reply, and then decided I needed to think about it a while.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
@Curtis Clark: It's a been a while, but I thought I'd get back to you about this. If I resume editing, I may in fact try to draft an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia might be good enough. Didn't know that existed. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)



Kinda old stuff to sort through (mostly barnstars I didn't move to my /Barnstars page yet)[edit]

Chapeau[edit]

... for this one! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually like hats. :-) Your readability tweak was a good idea. I was a little concerned about it myself, but I'm not a cards editor, so I wasn't sure if there was a typical way of making hands more legible. (Also not sure if people conventionally use the card symbols that are available in Unicode, etc.). I do edit a lot of games articles, but almost exclusively in cue sports and related. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I specially like hats when there's a set of dice under them :-)
Perhaps you don't know, but overhere we use the name chapeau for the cup and, by extension, for the game itself. As you can see here—als je Nederlands een beetje in orde is—, we play an entirely different game with it, a game where one can practice the fine art of subtle bluffing, downright lying, assessing oponents' behaviour, and accurately estimating probabilities. We also play the "Mexican" variant, which is even subtler. Check it out and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that, about the chapeau. I thought you were awarding me a virtual hat. :-) . I am familiar with the bluff game (possibly the Mexican version, since I learned it in California), but have always played that one with regular dice. Anyway, if you like what I did in the English version, certainly feel free to "port" it to the Netherlands Wikipedia. I may be able to work through the Dutch enough to add something about the other variants to the English article here, since it is rather paltry. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it was meant as a virtual hat award as well - I had seen a hat on your user page :-)

Porting from there to here could be a bit problematic, as there's not many sources around, alas. - DVdm (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to dig through my game encyclopedias and stuff. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, if you find something, please let know. I'd be glad to work on it together. Cheers and happy digging. - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar comment[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Don't delete this! -

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For behaving in a genteel fashion, as if nothing were the matter, and for gallantry. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sankyu beddy mush! Hardly necessary for me just behaving properly. Heh. But I appreciate it anyway. I left you a note at your page about that Guidance rename idea. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Shou ist werie velcum. I think the 'Guidance' name and the way you simplified it into a short statement is very good! And people should give out more barnstars. They are very merited and it isn't as if they cost us anything.--Djathinkimacowboy 10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png A beer on me!
for all of the thoughtful posts through the extended discussion at MOSCAPS. I've appreciated it. JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank ya verra much! I was thirsty. >;-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Creatorofbarnstars.png The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar
Thank you for your submission of the Instructor's Barnstar. It's now on the main barnstar list. Pinetalk 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Keen beans! Thanks.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This comes as a recognition of your kindness in developing the Firefox Cite4wiki add-on. It has been helpful and a great resource. I was also happy to learn you contribute to Mozilla which I do as well :) ₫ӓ₩₳ Talk to Me. Email Me. 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, though some others deserve more credit than I do, especially Jehochman (talk · contribs) for the original concept, and Unit 5 (talk · contribs) for the bulk of the code still used in this version. I mostly just added the ability to customize the output for specific sites, and fixed some consistency issues, as well as set up the WP:Cite4Wiki page for it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
In recognition of your general fine work around the 'pedia, and the staunchness and standard of argumentation on style issues. And if for nothing else, I think you deserve it for this comment  Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
<bow> — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
It's a bit delayed, but for your rather accurate edit summary here. Keep up the good work on various breed articles! TKK bark ! 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Why, thank ya verra much!  :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Heroic Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your recent work at WP:MOS: A model of unflagging effort, precise analysis, institutionally broad and historically deep vision, clear articulation, and civil expression under great pressure. Unforgettable. DocKino (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I do my best. At this point I'm being attacked on multiple pages in a concerted effort of harassment, and suspect that their goal is to get me to simply quit the project. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some Wiki-love for you[edit]

Purple Star.png The Purple Barnstar
You've been putting up with a lot of crap from other quarters; just want to let you know that people out there do, in fact, manage to appreciate your work. illegitimi non carborundum! VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 04:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That means a lot right now, actually. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I couldn't quite find a suitable barnstar for this, but I found it insightful when you brought up the issue of accessibility within TfD#Template:Tn. Maybe it was kind of a small realization you had, but on behalf of the disabled friends I have, thank you for bringing it up. A step in the right direction for making this everyone's encyclopedia. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. As someone with really poor eyesight, {{tn}} has actually meant something to me from an accessbility point of view (honestly, I don't even like that its functionality has been pared to do this {{!}} instead of {{!}} this to begin with, but one thing at a time, I guess.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Except of course that would be 30 min on the treadmill. But we can still look. Thank you for well measured comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
<nom nom nom> Thanks. I'm actually headed to the gym in 15 minutes, coincidentally. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
So was I when I sent it, hence the thought... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)



Current threads[edit]

Updating of Wikipedia guidelines and essays[edit]

Unresolved: Not sure as of June what needs to be one on this.

I saw the discussion and thank you for your help through Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A simple way forward on common names of species. Would you also like to update (check consistency with the consensus) the guidelines and essays related to the discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird article names: related Wikipedia guidelines and essays pages)? Thanks in advance! Selai Poisvre (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Working on it. I've already taken the first step of removing the "local consensus" stuff that suggests capitalization of birds, but don't know if I'll get resistance on this. Just because one RfC is closed doesn't mean everyone in favor of the capitalization will accept the result. This isn't the first such RfC. Assuming acceptance comes this time, we'd need to get the taxobox changed to support the parameters I added (they're just in a sandboxed version), and then add mention of how to use them to the relevant guidelines (maybe; that part might not be needed, and might even be objected to, since not everyone agrees all articles should have infoboxes).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tlg module[edit]

Unresolved: The affected templates are still using the old code.

I've recreated (some of) {{tlg}} in Lua w/ a shorthand here -- it works 86% percent of the time! Anyway, this way should be easier to maintain, and we'll still have a shorter syntax if the tl-whatever tpls get deleted. If you like the idea, then maybe we can pitch it at tlg's talk page or wherever. If not, then oh well. — lfdder 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Cool beans!  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Lfdder:: The temples were kept, marginally, but I agree that the Lua route you were working on is ultimately a better way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Redundant sentence?[edit]

Unresolved: Work to integrate NCFLORA and NCFAUNA stuff into MOS:ORGANISMS]] not completed yet.

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)

  1. I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely different groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
  2. I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there[8], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
  2. I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
  2. Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

code vs. tt[edit]

Unresolved: Did not yet do the code work I said I would: I have it open in some window somewhere...

I could say that insisting on the use of <code> rather than <tt> is an example of an un-necessary, if not fallacious, specialist style. :-) I ought to be guilty of it, since I used to teach HTML! I confess that I use "tt" because it saves typing... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Heehaw! I'm a stickler for HTML semantic purity whenever possible (which reminds me I need to fork {{bq}} into a div-based block indenter for non-quotations). I try not to make edits like that unless I'm making other ones at the same time and throw them in as an afterthought, on the same basis that just futzing with things like [[chicken|chick]] -> [[Chicken|chick]] is considered objectionable by some.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Diacritics: Moving forward[edit]

Unresolved: No diacritics RfC drafted yet.

I too have no very clear idea about how to word an RfC, other than that it should be in relation to specific proposed changes to the MOS and not something vaguer. I also think it's very important to keep to the issue of diacritical marks in the original orthography of the language, and not stray into either additional letters (like eth or thorn) or the use of diacritical marks in transcription/transliteration (like retaining accents when going from πότε to póte or marking long vowels by macrons in transliterating a number of languages, including Greek and Japanese). These are separate issues.

The problems, for me, are primarily in the first paragraph of WP:DIACRITICS, which is evasive, muddled and inconsistent:

  • The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged – this is just evasion. Their use or non-use should be motivated, and hence should be encouraged or discouraged according to the strength of the motivation.
  • when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works) – this encouragement to count "hits" just results in muddled policy, apart from the problem of the weasel word "general". However, this bit seems clear that the "modifications" are to the same word, i.e. can be treated as stylistic modifications.
  • The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. This seems to me not to be consistent with the sentence before: is "the common name" here supposed to be with or without the added diacritical marks? "[V]ersions of a word" above should mean that "the common name" is the same with or without the diacritical marks.

Is it possible to re-write this paragraph to achieve consensus? I don't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Agreed those are separate issues

Agreed the first quoted passage is evasive, but motivating use or avoidance of diacritics seems to be the sticking point. Did you have some particular direction in mind? My take has been that if reliable sources show that their use is normal for the names in question that they should be used here, except where particular subjects eschew them. E.g. for a baseball player named Eddie Sandoval we'd give him as Eddie Sándoval if some reliable sources did (it can't be based on a majority of English language sources, since majority of them ignore diacritics entirely, as a matter of editorial/publishing convenience). It's the same principle that we can cite a single source for Eddie's birth date and place even if most sources don't mention them. A fact does not have to be provided by every single source to be considered reliable. And it's not a matter of sources conflicting (analogous to giving two different birth dates); some giving only Sandoval without the diacritics is like some sources giving a birth year but not a full birth date; it is incomplete information, not conflicting information. On the other hand, if Eddie himself is quoted saying he doesn't use the diacritic that should be a trumping factor (unless WP totally ditches subject preference in all areas, which seems unlikely given the number of discussions going on to make more allowances for subject preference all over the place). This can apply to geography, too (Santa Fe, New Mexico is "Santa Fe" not "Santa Fé" despite the popularity of the diacritic in certain circles; the official name of both the city and the county are "Santa Fe" with no accent. People frequently cite WP:OFFICIALNAME as if it were a policy, but it's actually just an essay, it may not accurately reflect the nuances in cases like this, and people often cite it without actually understanding what it says to begin with (it's frequently misinterpreted as being against use of official names, when it's really only against using them when they're directly unhelpful to readers, while otherwise we would almost certainly use the official name)

I'm not sure "general" in the second passage is actually a weasel word, rather than just lack of clarity. It's not clear if it means the predominant use in reliable sources generally, the predominant use in general-audience sources, or both. The inclusion of "and reference works" strongly suggests the former. Regardless, the "hit-counting" aspect is a problem because of the aforementioned facts that a) English-language sources tend to ignore diacritics for their own convenience (and sometimes for socio-political reasons - you'll find that right-wing sources in English virtually never use them), and b) it only takes one reliable source to establish a fact, for WP purposes.

Yes, the third passage means that the name for WP:COMMONNAME purposes is the same and that the diacritics are just a style matter. But I'm not sure we care what this passage says since it's just an interpretation of "the policy [sic] on using common names and on foreign names". An interpretation of policy doesn't trump actual policy and can be rewritten to more clearly reflect it.

The location of this material at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters (WP:DIACRITICS) seems a bit problematic, and it should mostly be merged (in whatever form) into MOS:DIACRITICS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spelling and romanization.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To take the last point first, absolutely; this (now) has nothing to do with titles per se.
My gut feeling is that the policy should be that personal or place names originally in a language that uses the Latin alphabet extended by diacritics should be written in their original orthography by default, unless there is evidence that the name has been assimilated into English. Sources are then relevant for two purposes: to determine whether the name is assimilated (including sources showing the preference of people for their own names), and if it is not assimilated, to determine how the word is written in its original orthography. Placing the onus on editors to show that a name has been assimilated seems to me likely to work better than being neutral and asking what sources do. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Even moving the stuff from the NC guideline to the MOS proper shouldn't be hard, since they're both guideline-level. It'd be nice if both the WP and MOS shortcuts went to the same text.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: You've been silent on this for a while. What's your take?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cite4Wiki development[edit]

Unresolved: Still need to deal with this Cite4Wiki stuff.

During the time you were not editing Wikipedia I sent you a request to be added to the list of developers at Mozilla for Cite4Wiki. That request did not pan out because I had changed my user name there between when I made the request and when you were able to work on it. I replied to the email you sent me, providing my changed Mozilla user name. However, I did not hear anything more from you on the subject. It is quite possible that my email did not reach you.

I would again like to request to be added as a developer so I can release a new version of Cite4Wiki that is compatible with the current version of Firefox, includes automatic and semi-automatic archiving, etc. I also desire to put up an alpha/beta version with page scraping for more parameter values (authors, identifiers, etc.).

My user name on Mozilla is the same as my user name here: Makyen

Thanks. — Makyen (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

After making this request I realized that the position I was coming from was still that you were not participating in Wikipedia, or that you would stop doing so. In that situation, there was a need for an active developer able to post updates to Cite4Wiki to Mozilla. Given that you are back there is not a need for me to have this access. Convenient, yes, but not a need. It would also be possible for me to put a package somewhere where you could download it, review, make changes, and then upload to Mozilla if your choose. — Makyen (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I do need to give everyone access who needs it; I don't have any further development interest in that little project, but it's a needed tool. Keep pinging me about it, if I don't get around to it in short order. (I have a lot on my plate right now, so I've been dawdling on it.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It has been several months since my original request and closing on two months since my request here. It is clear that this is not a high priority for you. That's fine. Given that, it looks like the most appropriate thing for me to do is create a new extension name, something like "Cite4Wiki Phoenix". I will proceed with doing so. — Makyen (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Informal note[edit]

Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}}. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Face-smile.svg Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo[edit]

Resolved

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society Access[edit]

Resolved

Hey SMcCandlish, please make sure to follow the instructions in the email I sent nearly 2 weeks ago to ensure that you can get WP:RSUK access, Sadads (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Resolved

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

WP:OUP access[edit]

Resolved

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

Landrace[edit]

Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg Started

Excellent work you're doing on this article. It would be good to work into the article the general point that all attempts to produce rigid boundaries when defining groups/taxa of organisms are bound to fail, because of inherent genetic variability between individuals. Darwin's statement "I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" applies equally to distinctions between landraces and breeds or cultivar groups and cultivars. However, although I've looked I can't find a source for this exact point. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I've been keeping an eye out. I can find lots of sources for the fact that there are different definitions serving different interests (some very broad, some very narrow, most in the middle), but I've not run into anything about the underlying genetics reasons that make it a thorny problem from the outset.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd almost bet money that we don't find a universal definition. Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't need one, just an operable one that doesn't significantly contradict what less narrow and more reliable sources are getting at. Automobile is a good case in point; it provides the reader with a general-consensus definition assembled from how use in most sources' overlaps – i.e., it a non-novel synthesis, permissible under WP:NOR – and that article allows for (right there in lead) other, less common definitions without dwelling on them (which would be WP:UNDUE under NOR), and it makes it clear that the article is not principally about those alternative views (a permissible form of WP:SELFREF). We would not tolerate a lone editor trying to force a PoV at that article that the term must include 18-wheelers, in WP's treatment of the subject, just because they encountered some definition somewhere that did; nor that we must not include SUVs because this editor personally can't stand the term being applied to SUVs or thinks that off-roading magazines (a narrow, specialist source) mostly don't use the term to refer to SUVs; or that we can't have an article that provides a general, broad definition, on the basis that it's somehow original research to note what the sources do agree on, or not every source agreeing on every aspect of a definition makes it somehow an invalid approach.

I detect all three types of this reasoning being applied against the Landrace article, and it's not how we do things here. A very large number of our articles provide general-purpose definitions and treatments of a term/subject, note that other definitions exist and sometimes what they are, then move on, with the rest of WP mostly using and linking to the term as used at that article. For another case in point, see Species. All sorts of PoV pushing could be done with regard to that topic (and has been tried), but we shut it down, because it's anti-encyclopedic noise. Enough has been written, in reliable sources (but perhaps only by one researcher, which may itself present a PoV issue) about definitional disagreement that perhaps a section can be devoted to it (it's not like it rises to an article-level issue like the species problem), but even that may be overkill.

At any rate there's no such thing as a "universal definition" of anything. WP nevertheless goes on just fine. This too shall pass, and we'll end up with a perfectly fine landrace article, and articles on animal and plant varieties that properly refer to it and stop abusing the word "breed" for everything that isn't a wild species, whether that happens this month or ten years from now. Hell, it took ~9 years for the species common name capitalization issue to sort out (if it really has). I take the long view of these things. I could disappear off the face of the earth, and it'll still happen eventually, just because of how the WP community builds and cross-references articles.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_160#Italics_re._toy_lines[edit]

Unresolved: Proposal not made yet.

Hi. Sorry for not seeing this before it got archived. Yes, I would be happy to support your suggestion for updating MOS in an RFC if you started one on the subject. Best, It Is Me Here t / c 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:September 11 attacks[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:September 11 attacks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup[edit]

Symbol declined.svg Declined: Way too much going on IRL to devote sufficient time to this.

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

I saw your comment at the Michael Brown talk page. I remember working with you years ago at WP. I don't do much here other than occasional clean up, mostly without logging in. But I use WP to get to the heart of information, as I feel that for most topics the system works. For that reason I came to the MB article last week and was upset by the POV and bias in the Lede. There was subtle and not so subtle sensationalism. I think that it is better now. But I think it could be better. You gave some broad direction, but could you be more specific? I hope that all is well with you and that you are having a great weekend. Kevin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Already done: Someone else fixed it.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tam Lin may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • publication date of ''[[The Complaynt of Scotland]]'' that mentions "The Tayl of the [[Yogh|Ȝ]]ong]] Tamlene" ('The Tale of the Young Tamelene'}}) among a long list of medieval romances).{{Refn|Child, ''ESPB'' '''II''': 336<ref name="child-tam-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White people[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:White people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Fixed

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Celtic League (political organisation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • There are various [diaspora]] branches, that play little part in the annual general meetings.
  • Supports Independence First |work=Independence First |date=2007 |accessdate=7 December 2007}}{{dead link|date=October 2012}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Landrace may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky[edit]

Already done: Commented there a week ago.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Resolved
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, SMcCandlish. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 03:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I submitted the form just now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles[edit]

Pursuant to our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, I have created an essay Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles, and would welcome your input into that essay. I believe that it should quickly be refined with whatever additional points are needed to fully reflect our practices with respect to consistency, and moved to guideline status. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: Looks good so far, though I have not pored over its every detail. I wouldn't bet on guideline status. It's hard enough to get even an essay on this sort of thing to stick around in projectspace (Born2cycle has had three WP:AT supplementary essays userspaced recently). The key is probably just avoiding WP:OWN problems. I think it should cover consistency of disambiguation in more detail, too, but no hurry.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 September[edit]

Fixed

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

Already done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Symbol declined.svg Declined: Too heated to produce any result but "revert to last stable version", and the facts behind the "Greek or not" arguments are both outside my expertise and too detailed for me to research in the time I have available.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup
Symbol support vote.svg

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Please comment on Talk:List of ethnic cleansings[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of ethnic cleansings. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South African Republic[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South African Republic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Livestock and poultry breed articles[edit]

Why don't we just solve this via a general RFC at WikiProject Agriculture, rather than stringing out a bunch of split arguments across many articles. It would be easiest for all involved to discuss the issue in one place. Steven Walling • talk 03:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: This will be a pretty detailed response, and I am interested in your thoughts. Because not all domestic animal breeds are agricultural, that wikiproject wouldn't seem to be an appropriate locus, even if having such discussions hosted by wikiprojects wasn't problematic for bias reasons. RMs and RFCs about naming that are hosted on wikiproject pages almost always go the way the wikiproject wants them to, because most wikiproject participants have the wikiproject pages watchlisted and are thus brought into the discussion in much larger than normal levels, resulting in a skewed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that doesn't reflect a site-wide perspective, and which will just be challenged later, because lots of people are aware of this RFC/RM-skewing effect of hosting them on wikiproject pages. When we get to the point where some RFC might be viable, it should be hosted at WT:AT because this is a WP:AT matter, and AT is a topic-neutral policy page for everyone. It's vaguely possible that one could succeed there now, but I wouldn't bet on it.

All that said, attempts to resolve these matters centrally are attacked as trying to force a one-size-fits-all view, an external rule, a style cabal straightjacket, [insert something else histrionic here]. Meanwhile, attempts to resolve them one article at a time are attacked as trying to tendentiously drag out and nickel-and-dime everything in a war of attrition, picking on articles that violate (non-existent or invalid) wikiproject-level naming rules, and [insert various personal attacks here]. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, in which the desire to have wikiprojects autonomous and making up their own "naming conventions" that conflict with the next project over, leads to both WP:FILIBUSTER tactics being used by the same parties; neither approach to cleaning up the breed article naming mess can succeed, because both are blockaded.

Do you really feel an RFC would be effective now, and if so how would it proceed? The devils are really in the details on this, and virtually all the involved projects want there to be no site-wide rules to comply with, only their own internal convention on "their" articles.

My tactic lately has been to try a third approach that is much harder to prevent community consensus about, and it's one that is usually effective, regardless of topic. That is to sort RMs into groups of titles that all raise the same problem (e.g. confusabilty with an ethnicity), that is already clearly addressed by WP:AT policy and/or WP:MOS rules, and propose moves to names that comply with those rules. Then it's not an animal breed names (or whatever) discussion, it's a discussion about article compliance with actual, site-wide naming conventions generally, and this either eliminates drama or makes the drama much easier to detect and ignore as just drama. After enough such moves, a pattern of how to name breed articles will naturally, automatically emerge (in theory), and can't be easily WP:BATTLEGROUNDed against. An RFC at that point should cement things into an actual, written naming convention that is adopted as a guideline and doesn't conflict with WP:AT policies.

Unfortunately, the mess at Talk:Teeswater sheep is liable to result in a confused, confusing and disruptive mass status quo ante reversion to inconsistent and AT-violating names, and necessitate an whole new round of these discussions. Fortunately, I've already sorted them, at that page, into 7 different kinds of article titling issues, so they can probably be addressed in 7 RMs, the results of which will effectively be a new naming convention. Unfortunately again, the main problem is that the launcher of that RM mess has vowed to launch several more such messes, which will simply drag this out even longer, because they interfere with the other RMs.

So, you tell me – why would an RFC, even one hosted at WT:AT, be effective now, instead of just derailed by more grandstanding and handwaving? And more importantly by inter-wikiproject canvassing to protect WP:LOCALCONSENSUS interests (i.e. to protect the status quo of chaos and inconsistency simply because it's not a rule to comply with)? What can be done to prevent a handful of combative wikiproject editors from derailing the entire thing again?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There's an interconnected issue, which is that there has never been a community-wide decision on the capitalization of breed names. (Personally I see no argument for it that does not apply to capitalizing the English names of species, which was decided against, so I can't see how a properly discussed RfC could decide otherwise than to de-capitalize breed names, along with all generalist sources I can find.) The relevance is that if breed names are put into sentence case in titles, the distinction disappears between "Big Pig" as a full breed name but "Big pig" as a breed name followed by natural disambiguation, and this is intimately connected with the current discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I've enumerated some (probably not all) of the differences between between breed caps and species caps at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Breeds. I've long agreed that in theory breeds should not be capitalized where they do not contain a proper name, and noted that most off-WP style guides agree. But the WP:BIRDCON drama would probably be considered a mild little discussion compared to the shitstorm that would surround de-capping breeds. The majority of active editors of breed articles are strongly in favor of capitalization, because all the specialist sources use it. This is different from bird caps, because it's cross species. Bird were weird because the same standard wasn't being applied to mammals or arachnids or ferns or whatever. But all the breed articles are cap'd, other than I think I ran into two that weren't, and procedurally RM'd them to be consistent. In some cases, breed editors agree on nothing but the capitalization, and otherwise are antipathetic. Despite a strong logical case for doing so, I don't think WP will successfully decapitalize domestic animal breeds. I no longer bother advocating it, as it seems utopian. Heh.

I'm not sure that the Big pig vs. Big Pig stuff would make any difference; "The breed is closely related to the American Quarter Horse" vs. "The breed is closely related to the American quarter horse". Who cares? Obviously people who like to capitalize breed names do, but I mean that for encyclopedic reasons, it doesn't matter; the actual article wording will correctly give the breed name in the lead (here it would be "The American Quarter Horse is..." vs. "The American Quarter is..."). There may be one or two cases where a breed and a landrace or type name would coincide, because of a WP:DIFFCAPS disambiguation, but those are dumb ideas in this topic area anyway, and if there are still any, they should be renamed. If one wants to make the argument that using parenthetical disambiguation would "protect" a breed name, lower cased, from being confused with something else, it wouldn't really, because the horse project for one consistently uses parenthetical dab. for the names of individual horses (mostly racehorses) and these sometimes even coincide with breed names. We have such limited ways of dab'ing, there is no one perfect solution. The least conflicting one is: "Foo Bar baz" means a domesticated baz breed named Foo Bar; "Foo Bar Baz" means a domesticated baz breed named Foo Bar Baz; "foo bar baz" (or "Foo bar baz", if Foo is a proper name) means a non-breed population or type of bazes; "Foo Bar (baz)" means some term Foo Bar that relates to the baz species, most often a body part or an individual. The "Foo Bar (baz)" structure can already mean almost anything, and it's senseless to operator-overload that further to also mean breeds. At least one person purporting to represent the horse project will go to the mat on this, and "Foo Bar baz" naming has been totally uncontroversial in several other species such as cats. (Most of the "controversy" that exists at all, is three individual editors being loud about it. One doesn't even agree with the stance she's taking and openly says she's doing it just because she doesn't like me, which means her position can be ignored by the closer. One of the others has such serious English language comprehension problems, including with regard to capitalization basics, that the competence of their input renders their !votes basically useless, too. So that leaves one editor mostly responsible for the filibustering of consistency in these categories.) Thet fact that getting these names consistent would mean they could be easily mass-moved with regard to capitalization, disambiguation style, is clearly among the reasons for resistance against consistency in breed article titles.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼ 

You may be right about the impossibility (at present anyway) of getting agreement to decapitalize breed names, however illogical that is given the decision about English species names. I entirely agree with you on using natural disambiguation where at all possible; there are already far too many confusing and inconsistent uses of words in parentheses in titles (and see the discussion at Talk:Cereus (disambiguation) where there was an argument for "disambiguating" an already disambiguated title by adding another word within the parentheses). So I'm certainly not arguing for "Foo Bar (baz)" over "Foo Bar baz", just that it mustn't be accepted that the capitals show that this is the breed "Foo Bar" of the species "baz", because one day it may become "Foo bar baz" (and there should be a redirect there anyway under the principle of having redirects at alternative capitalizations). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Completely concur. I don't want to be mistaken as making the "one true case" that "Foo Bar baz" necessarily means a breed, Foo Bar of the species baz; rather, for as long as we're capitalizing it, any such breed would be rendered this way if the species were appended, unless it's a rare "Foo Bar Baz" case like "Norwegian Forest Cat". I.e., it's an automatic result, not an ideal. In many cases a landrace name and a breed name will be indistinguishable, because most of both are just in the form "Foo baz"; you have to read the Van cat article to know which it is, for example.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Whether a centralized discussion is at a WikiProject (I suggested Agriculture because it is popular and generic, rather than specific to Livestock or Poultry or Equines) or at a page like WP:AT or MOS:ORGANISMS makes zero difference to me. I am just tired of seeing essentially the same argument spread across too many individual article talk pages. People with lives outside Wikipedia don't have the energy to have the same argument in a dozen different places. I think if you're concerned about getting participation from people with expertise in article title issues who are not livestock/poultry aficionados, you'll have a better chance if we don't make people chase the issue around a collection of different breed articles. Like I said on a few pages, I'm neutral on the actual issue. I just want to see it dealt with so we can get on to more important stuff. Steven Walling • talk 22:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Steven Walling: I agree with your feelings on this, I just firmly predict that any such RFC will get filibustered. The entire point of that mess at Talk:Teeswater sheep, a mass status quo ante discussion to blanet-revert months worth of article moves without discussion of the merits of the article names, is to move them all away from increased naming consistency back to utter chaos in animal breed article titles, and stall consistency by requiring yet another round of probably page-by-page move discussions, which the general editorship will probably been too tired an bored to engage in, leading to WP:WINNING by the camp opposed to site-wide standards, instead of any real consensus. Those with an interest in preserving the inconsistency chaos (which amounts to wikiproject-level, insular autonomy from WP:AT, in effective practice) repeatedly strenuously object whenever even a few RMs on the merits are grouped and covered in a single discussion. It's WP:LAME, but many things on WP are, increasingly so since the end of the 2010s, since most important articles have already been written, and the "sexy" work is therefore done, leaving a core editorship that, with every passing month, is smaller, more topically obsessive, and more invested in WP as a game/pastime/sport for their own entertainment. Some of this stuff getting tedious is inevitable.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't fathom...[edit]

I've just had my attention drawn to your request on AN. I really don't understand why you didn't avoid the drama and ask me directly. Always always always try the most drama-free method first - the worst that can happen is I'd say "take it to AN". the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves: Live and learn. I was trying to avoid drama, because the exact wording of my 3-month move ban was basically editwarred over by two admins, and it seemed like I'd be immediately accused of parent-shopping if I were to ask one not the other to change the wording again. It's interesting who's come out of the woodwork to mire a simple "can I move my own pages?" clarification with a string of incessant personal attacks about unrelated matters. I sense that will be an ANI issue very shortly, despite my efforts to get said parties to engage in WP:Dispute resolution, because the ad hominem pattern is not abating at all, but continuing at Talk:Landrace and other pages. I don't think they take WP:ARBATC very seriously either, but I don't wish WP:AE on anyone.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You really didn't need to ask for a wording change ... simply ask "just to clarify, am I allowed to move pages inside my own userspace?" - wouldn't have hurt anyone. About "unrelated matters", that's the problem when you file at AN or ANI, those unrelated things can and will be used against you - not only is it allowed, it's at the top of the page! the panda ₯’ 09:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Noted.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN[edit]

Unfortunately, you have misinterpreted my position. I never meant to suggest that projects control content of articles included in their projects. I was talking about project scope and which articles are included. Even after your changes (done without consensus), it still holds that projects have a strong say over which articles they include. My issue was that linking to that section appears to accuse project banner removers of WP:OWN, which isn't necessarily the case. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we're just having mutual communications problems. The rewritten text still clearly indicates that project scope is principally a matter of wikiproject participants' consensus, while getting rid of all the policy-violating language, and irrationality, in that section; so I don't see what the issue is you want to raise here. I don't need a new consensus to correct those violations; the policies already are consensus, the strongest we have. And a consensus arrived at by the community about the "member" language remains a consensus, absent any later discussion clearly overturning it on WP:CCC grounds). WP:BOLD is also a policy. You can WP:BRD revert the changes if you want, but I'm wondering on what possible policy-cognizant basis you'd defend the older language, which itself in various places was petulantly modified without and, more to the point, against consensus, to be a big show of territorial chest-beating and very un-wiki admonishments. :-) Within minutes of making the changes I started receiving "thank" notices for having done so. I agree that the WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN shortcut is weird and unhelpful, but the fix for that is to go make a new one, like WP:PROJGUIDE#BANNERWAR or even just WP:BANNERWAR or WP:SCOPEWAR, and put it there. No one has objected to the idea that WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN is a lame shortcut name, right? Sounds like WP:BOLD time again.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We also have a policy/guideline somewhere about being bold but if you're making major changes, it's a good thing to let other editors know why you're making the changes. I don't think your explanation on the talk page was specific enough. At any rate, I'm not going to revert your work, and I don't think I have ever indicated that I would. I only wanted to concentrate on the section not using the harshest language to start out with, through its shortcut or its title. I should be able to link to the section without the editor I'm referring to it thinking I'm accusing them of WP:OWN. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:BOLD is the policy. It doesn't contradict my actions. Between my clear edit summaries and what I posted on the talk page (and now here), I'm unclear what the issue is, especially since you're indicating that, basically, there isn't one.  :-) I've re-posted in support of your idea that the PROJGUIDE#OWN shortcut is poor. I move that we have nothing further to argue about.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Participants" vs "members"[edit]

Could you point me to where the decision to use "participant" rather than "member" for WikiProjects is documented? I note that although looking at a random selection of WikiProject pages suggests most use "participant" on the project page (with the interesting exception of WikiProject Birds), all the templates I looked at in Category:WikiProject user templates used "member". Apart from WP:OWN issues, "participant" seems to me to be more likely to encourage people to join in than "member", since to become a "member" of a group normally requires some qualification or approval process. I'd like to change the user project template for WP:PLANTS at least, but would like to know where this is supported, should there be objections. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a mass action at WP:CFD. I'm in the middle of cleaning up Landrace again (the usual suspect has been blatantly misrepresenting sources, among other problem there).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll search the archives myself, but if you ever have the time, you're probably more likely to find the information than I am. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I think this is the main one: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#More WikiProject participants, following on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Category:WikiProject Chemistry participants. It's notable that in the first it's suggested that "we can't come to conclusion on members vs. participants", and the "More WikiProject participants" one immediately after it did just that. This may have come up at MFD, too, to move various non-category pages around. I usually do it as non-controversial WP:RM, and do not recall ever having such a move controverted.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: Going back even further, I found another one, in which I actually opposed preferring one over the other; changed my mind on that later after some of the WP:OWN problems surrounding wikiprojects became clearer.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. There's much more variability/confusion over this than I thought. It seems possible to find every combination of "participant" vs. "member" on WikiProject pages, their user templates, and the resulting category name. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: It was mostly all cleaned up at one point, but has obviously crept again. I changed all usage in WP:WikiProject Council/Guide to "partcipants", so that may help prevent more "members" creep. I guess we need to make a list of stuff to rename, and start RM, CfD, etc., processes for them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The main problem area is user templates. I checked Category:WikiProject user templates again; looking at about 20 randomly chosen entries found only one that used "participant". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Landrace balance[edit]

Apropos Landrace, I have looked over the section on plants from time to time and sighed to myself – in my view it's far from NPOV (basically written as "landrace" = good, "cultivar" = bad), depends on too few sources (partly responsible for the NPOV) and ignores modern approaches to describing and naming cultivated plants, such as the ICNCP. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yep, needs a lot of work. Part of the problem here is that it began as a very simple article on the term, but has turned into a polarized piece because a certain editor or two seem to feel outright threatened in some way by the idea that some horse "breeds" in the broadest possible sense are landraces (or "landrace breeds" in FAO's neologistic internal terminology) rather than formal, standardized breeds. It's turned into some kind of holy war against the concept of landrace. A consequence of this is reliance on sources that really, really clearly spell out the difference between landraces and other domestic animal and plant categorizations, and these are mostly "genetic resources" conservation articles, which pretty much automatically take a dim view of cultivars and formal animal breeds. Their only real concern is preservation of genetic diversity, while other major concerns, like productivity of agricultural output, or even simple aesthetics and breeding for them, aren't given much attention in such sources.

I'm not really sure what the solution is, other than simply biding enough time that anyone with an extreme point of view to push loses interest and goes away to work on other articles again, and someone like you in the interim improves the article with balancing sources like ICNCP. Their detailed nomenclature system doesn't seem incompatible with landrace classification, any more than it is with heirloom plant classification. The landrace question is fairly simple: Is this a regionally isolated, domesticated organism adapted to its local environment on its own through free-breeding selection in it area, or is it something mostly shaped by selective, pedigreed breeding for specific qualities (in particular, over the last century or so)?

This doesn't seem to me to interfere with ICNCP classification of something as varietas, forma, etc., since landrace vs. standardized breed is about a human management question. To me, ICNCP's system is, by way of analogy, like deciding if a pickup truck is a Ford, a Chevrolet, etc., then what model it is, then what year, then what "trim level" or options package; the landrace question is like asking whether it was designed for the commercial delivery vs. personal/family use markets. Or in personal computers, the landrace distinctions is analogous to off-the-shelf PCs (generally made from whatever parts the manufacturer has procured) vs. a custom-built machine built to exacting specs, e.g. for gaming, or A-V development, or whatever; in that metaphor, ICNCP's nomenclature is akin to the technical specs (CPU and bus architecture, etc.), which are independent of the build process and any specialized intent. I'm not trying to 'splain to you what ICNCP is doing – you know better than I do – but conceptualize how the approach differs, in simple terms, so that the article can be adjusted without it turning into another dispute from the usual quarters. Metaphors like this tend to be helpful in that regard, as long as they're apt.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As with a number of topics, it seems clear what a sensible article would say, but finding reliable sources that say it isn't easy. To turn a landrace into a cultivar (plant) or a breed (animal) requires human management to impose uniform compliance with some describable standard, so that it's possible to judge that a single individual organism is, or is not, an example of that cultivar (a legal requirement for selling seed under a cultivar name in many countries) or breed (a requirement for showing breeds). A landrace, on the other hand, is much more variable – often deliberately so – hence there may well be organisms not clearly assignable to one landrace or another, particularly those developed in similar locations/environments, even though the landraces as a whole are distinguishable. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur, on every point.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 September[edit]

Fixed: Just a "FOA" for "FAO" typo.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazi Party[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazi Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking here, not there[edit]

Not wanting to stir up yet one more controversy, but I thought I'd float a balloon over an idea. If you are opposed, I won't pursue it further, but I'm seriously wondering if there is at least a partial solution to the landrace dilemma with this: Make two articles, one on plants, one on animals. You know that I generally tend to disfavor splitting and forking, so you realize that I'm making a sincere proposal - this time I wonder if it would ratchet down some of the drama because I think part of the problem is comparing "apples and oranges" (or apples and cattle, oranges and sheep - to be more precise). The plant article will probably be longer and more complex, as the concept has been around longer, and there are way more peer-reviewed sources on plants. The animal one will probably still have disputed material, but at least we will know what we are fighting about. But I suspect the whole problem began with a lot of animal articles linking to "landrace", which when you clicked on the link, originally was mostly a plant article. I won't even debate titling, perhaps Landrace (plant) and Landrace (animal) or Plant landrace and Animal landrace - whatever. I can also still move articles if you want to set up sandboxes... if you like the idea, I'll slap on a "split" template and we can just state at talk that we agree on the split and if no one else cares, then when the two new articles are at least sketched out, even if we still disagree on content, the landrace one becomes a dab. Your friend above, Peter Coxhead, may be useful to work on the plant one. Montanabw(talk) 05:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I don't necessarily see it as more controversy. My reactions to this are mixed, but hopeful. I'll format this in a "listy" way that hopefully doesn't trigger another of your "tl;dr" reactions, and will try to phrase my concerns in terms of my perceptions rather than make statements about your actions.
  • Basically I could support this, with conditions, but I remain skeptical because of ongoing conflict. I agree it could be helpful, because it would keep the sourcing more separate. However, two obvious concerns on this are:
  1. Some sources in botany and zoology have published general, not botany- or zoology-specific, information about landraces and the concept thereof, but one may be apt to use inverse original research to try to limit them to one or the other. I base this observation on recent edit history at the article (i.e. the last two months, give or take).
  2. From my point of view, you're already evading WP:BRD in your efforts to advance the FAO and OED definitions, in the lead, as the broadest-applicable ones, when they're the exact opposite. It isn't raising my confidence level in this split proposal not being some kind of divide-and-conquer move. But who knows? We've both been critical of each other lately. You seem to be trying to show that "landrace is just a kind of breed", in a way that can mislead. I'm not implying any motive here, just observing a result that I perceive: It will confuse readers, it's not practical, and it doesn't accurately reflect the sources and their contexts. We can't use an odd, ambiguous, super-broad definition of "breed" in Wikipedia's voice, any more than we'd promote a definition of "automobile" that included aircraft and tanks and motorboats, just because some source somewhere was found using the term that broadly. It's a serious neutrality, and source reliability, and undue weight problem, and it would be even if I agreed with your distaste for the term "landrace" and it being applied to horses.
  • Perhaps it would be helpful to stop playing edit-summary chess, and just have a simple discussion about what our goals and concerns with regard to this article are? We can do that in a section below. That might go a huge way toward resolving our disputes, especially if it's here in user talk and not "recorded live in front of an article-talk-page audience". Lower pressure and tension. You say I talk too much, so you go first.
  • Non-negotiable: No more personalizing accusations or labeling or characterizations (that includes "bullying", "aggressive", "vicious", etc.), no ad hominem arguments, no attacks, no assumptions of bad faith. At all, not from me, not from you, not in a back-door way by you backing up one of the other usual suspects in making them against me at wikiproject or animal breed talk pages, etc. However, no spinning of legitimate editorial concerns as "attacks" (e.g. I can't say you're attacking me if you claim an edit of mine has a POV problem, or that an argument of mine is misconstruing NPOV, nor vice versa with our roles reversed).
  • There are other points to consider, but this is a start. You told me the other day that you effectively have no faith in me at all; I don't think that's really true or you wouldn't be here. You know mine with regard to you is also seriously eroded, but not dead, or I wouldn't be talking to you either. How do we repair that? I'll have specific concessions I'll want to enumerate, and I'm sure you will, too. I also have practical matters to raise about the split should it be proposed, but let's build the bridge before we try to cross it.
  • PS: Plants, and @Peter coxhead: Peter disagrees with me about as often as not, but we usually avoid this sort of tooth-gnashing, and have learned to collaborate, though we used to argue more angrily. I'm not sure why you and I are having so much difficulty in that regard. I try to avoid classifying people as "friends" or not (much less "enemies" >;-) on here because it can cause "choosing sides" problems, as you have experienced yourself at RM. I would hope that he takes an interest in directly clarifying the plant-related material. My own interest is primarily on the animal side, for now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC) PS: Logging out for a bit to get some real-world project work completed, so if I don't get back to you rapidly it's not because I'm ignoring you. Take your time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Trust me, I'm so far beyond skeptical that you have no idea. But I think you are smart enough to see it's a partial way out of this morass. I see no need for preconditions, but you like responses, so here are mine:
    1. General sources could be used in both articles where appropriate. Many articles throughout wikipedia have minor sections that mirror other articles. No need to create segregated sources
    2. And from my viewpoint, it is you who violate BRD, etc., etc., so let's just stop casting aspersions or assuming motives and drop that whole stick
    3. If you don't like the FAO and OED, then provide direct quotations from better quality sources that you find. I view them as the best sources I have found that provide a "definition" that can be applied to animals. Doesn't mean there isn't something better, but I haven't found it yet.
    4. You misunderstand my views about landraces, but FWIW, maybe I have not comprehended your view accurately and some of our disputes are because we are arguing with an empty chair. See next point, a bit tl;dr, your call if you want to read it.
      A bit tl;dr, your call if you want to read this bit: I'm oversimplifying (for the sake of brevity) but my own views are that genetic diversity is a good thing, but so too is the creation of predictable, consistent traits. I believe that rare breeds of livestock generally are worth preserving for any number of good reasons. So to me, yes, landraces are a type of breed (as Sponenberg says, an early stage in breed development), but that's a GOOD thing. To say a landrace isn't a "real "breed" is an insult! To deny landraces the status of "breeds" just because there is no registry or written set of pedigrees implies they are poor quality mongrels of unpredictable genetics and no particular value. Just because people didn't write down pedigrees and supervise mating doesn't mean that an animal landrace isn't genetically consistent and possessed of positive traits.
    5. I find Sponenberg's work of interest and quite credible.
    6. Yes, massive multiple edits with long summaries are useless for collaboration. I kind of like putting minor comments in hidden text, to be removed when addressed, but you don't like that method, so that leaves talk page.
    7. "Not negotiable?" Well, if you can, look in the mirror and realize that you are criticizing others for doing the very things you are doing to them. However, you may not agree with my position on this, so we may be at an impasse. I will not unilaterally disarm as a precondition to collaboration nor agree not to call you on what I view as problem behavior; but if the content works, we have no reason to spat. If you make no assumptions, cast no aspersions, focus on content, and realize that you might actually be the one who is wrong, can we accomplish something? Yeah, I could work with that.
    8. I think you are intelligent and capable of creating good content. I think enlightened self-interest means we both would prefer to work on content than waste bandwidth fighting about creating content. That's enough.
    9. I will not make assumptions as to why we are in conflict, though some of it may be due to irreconcilable differences on issues that may not be of cosmic importance to thre rest of the world (like capitalization and naming of animal breeds) we may have to agree to disagree on some things
    10. Further steps: I will post a split tag at the landrace article with a statement that you and I are looking at this as a way to clarify the content and improve coverage of the topic. Montanabw(talk) 05:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Montanabw: I've taken the liberty of refactoring to number the points for easier reference later, if necessary.
    1. I'm not sure that gets at what I was getting at. I'm talking about general material in topically specific sources, not in general sources. I.e., a paper about botany can make a general point about biology, and misconstruing it as only applicable to botany because of the journal it's in would be a form of WP:OR.
    2. I'm talking principally about you re-re-re-installing FAO and OED into the lead at Landrace when there's an ongoing dispute, under WP:BRD, about the applicability of those definition at Talk:Landrace.
      • We have a fundamental disagreement there, I do not agree with your position on that and we aren't going to resolve it here. It's one reason I favor splitting the article, though, as the plant side has some clear definitions used in peer-reviewed literature, while animals do not. --(Montanabw)
        • Splitting the article will simply result in two places instead of one to pursue the same dispute, so no thanks. (SMcCandlish)
    3. Has nothing to do with "like". FAO's definition is an internal one, and OED's is vague and contradicted by other sources. There is no requirement anywhere to use direct quotations; we're generally encouraged not to do so, but to write new material based on sources, instead of parroting them. The fact that FAO has "a definition" is meaningless to us when that definition is explicitly vague on purpose to ensure equal legal treatment of landraces and standardized breeds, regardless of the factual differences between them, in genetic conservation legal contexts. That's a very, very special case, and it can't be generalized into an actual encyclopedic definition of "landrace". That's a textbook case of WP:UNDUE and well as presenting both WP:V and WP:NPOV problems (it fails actual verification as to the intended meaning and context, and it advances FAO's government bureaucracy as more reliable than peer-reviewed science).
      • See above. I have found no better sources defining animal landraces and OED is a RS that augments FAO for animals - I still am asking for peer-reviewed definitions. Sponenberg may be one, but I want to see a direct quotation, as you and I clearly cannot even agree on what a source says. (Montanabw)
        • I've already address why both of these sources are faulty. Ignoring these arguments doesn't make them go away. (SMcCandlish)
    4. Thank you for clarifying! Two points, sorta: First, you're still misapplying Sponenberg, who says that landraces can be a stage in breed development. That means neither that they are always stages in breed development nor that they are, under most definition of the word, "breeds". Again, I'm okay with selectively using FAO's definitions, in a few rare spots were we think we need to in order to avoid disputes, but only if they're sourced and explained properly. Second, this gets at the "insult"/"status" problem, and I have long suspected that this was the root of our disagreement. Landraces are not breeds as that word is usually used, including on Wikipedia, i.e. "standardized, formal breed". If we occasionally mean to use a wider sense of "breed", e.g. in some horse articles, we have to be clear that it's a special definition and where it came from. So really, these are the same point. No one anywhere has suggested landraces are poor-quality mongrels; the main reason I care about the article at is because they're not.

      I also agree with you about cultivars and formal breeds being vital, and do not want the article to push a POV that landraces are "better" than them; we have sources that say why they have advantages, and we need sources that cover the counter-advantages of formal breeding, like increased production, etc. So we really disagree about this far less than it has seemed.

      • I would propose, and have elaborated in a section below, the idea that all of our breed articles need to be clarified to use "standardized breed", etc., not the ambiguous, bare word "breed".
      • I can only agree that not all landraces become standardized with a breed registry. The word "breed" IS fuzzy, and as much as you hope to come up with a set definition, I don't think it is doable per WP:SYNTH. If you recall JLAN's post with the definition that notes that biologists don't address questions of breeds in the same way they do with species. Animal breeders - and a lot of people here on wiki - don't really understand that a breed and a species are totally different things! Horses are a particularly good example, as we have everything from landraces to closed stud book registries such as the Thoroughbred, to people who create a designer crossbred and call the second generation a "breed" and use "hybrid" language to justify their (IMHO) nonsense. I read Sponenberg to say that landraces ARE an early stage of breed development, (even if not all get standardized) hence, the word "breed" in a general form applies to landraces in the sense of distinguishing them from mongrels, which I think is a crucial distinction in protecting and preserving landraces, and probably one reason many landraces are labeled "rare breeds" in some contexts. (Montanabw)
        • None of these points contradict my position in any way. (SMcCandlish)
    5. Agreed on Sponenberg, but he's just one source and we can't over-rely, as you understand.
      • yes. (Montanabw)
    6. Yes, let's use the talk page, and individual edits for different kinds of changes. Peter coxhead and others are taking an interest in this article, and it's not fair to them for us to treat it like it's our own pet. :-) Transparency and participation are good.
    7. Re: "Not negotiable": I pointedly included myself in that. I'm skeptical that we'll have no reason for conflict ever just because of a mutual attitude shift, but I think the strife level should go way down. Your one-sided response is not encouraging, frankly.
      • You may not realize that you presented a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposal. (Montanabw) You extensively discuss the mote in my eye while failing to see the log in your own - your comments that you are including yourself are tempered by other comments that indicate that you don't think you have done anything wrong. We won't resolve this here and it is actually irrelevant to the content discussion, again bringing personalities into the matter. (Montanabw)
        • I don't see where you're getting that from. You seem to be playing some kind of power game here. Not interested. (SMcCandlish)
    8. Agreed.
    9. Agreed.
    10. The conditions I mentioned: I'd be inclined to support the split idea, given both of the following: a) agreement to stop inserting FAO and OED into the lead pending resolution of that dispute, and b) actually using the "landrace breed" FAO terminology on Kiger Mustang as a test, as I outlined already at Talk:Landrace. These will be sufficient demonstration to me that a split will be a step forward rather than multiplying an editwar into two editwars.
      • See "heads I win, tails you lose" above. This isn't a horse trading issue, and I'm not reopening the Kiger Mustang issue. It's closed, it was a 5-1 consensus and that's a stick to drop. (Montanabw)
        • That's not it at all. See below (interleaving comments like this is a pain; I numbered them for a reason). (SMcCandlish)
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
(Big, deep sigh) Now you are basically asking that the content issue that is creating all the problems be resolved in alignment with your POV (or viewpoint, to not shout with capitals) before we even start. Your point suggest that before we do anything, I have to admit that you are right and I am wrong. That's "heads I win, tails you lose". That's like Israel telling the Palestinians to unilaterally disarm before they can hold peace talks. Not going to happen. We still should split the articles, personalities and battles aside. Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not it at all. See below  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Terminology proposal[edit]

I would propose (informally; this is not a WP:PROPOSAL) that all of our breed articles need to be clarified to use "standardized breed" or some synonym ("formal breed", etc.) when we mean that, at least on first occurrence, and linked to Breed. If we use landrace link it to Landrace. If we use "landrace breed", link it to Landrace, and avoid "breed" by itself as ambiguous.

If you (Montanabw) and FAO have a very broad sense of the word "breed", so may some other readers. That makes the term ambiguous at least some of the time, so we have a duty to clarify in article text. If every case has "X is a standardized breed" or either "X is a landrace" or (when we really, really want to use FAO terms) "X is a landrace breed", then no more problem, ever. Just never say "X is a breed".

As a draft criterion, I would suggest that we use FAO's "landrace breed" only for livestock, not pet breeds/landraces. Secondly, it should only be for cases where a preponderance of sources actually use the term "breed" in a very broad way to also include what we know are landrace breeds, which is probably most if not all horse landraces, because horse encyclopedias and the like tend to call everything "breeds" and distinguish formal/standardized ones by saying "standardized breed" or whatever. But it probably does not apply to many others. In goats and pigs, the phrase "landrace breed" means "standardized breed with the word 'Landrace' in its name", and actual landraces seem mostly to be ignored, i.e. are non-notable. So, "landrace breed" itself can also be ambiguous if used inappropriately. In cats and dogs, what constitutes a breed is generally based on what national and international organization specify, not private-business studbooks, so the issue does not arise. I.e., there is no question at all that the Van cat is a landrace not a standardized breed, and the term "breed" should not be applied to it, nor "landrace breed" since it'll just be redundantly long.

This is obviously just an informal proposal on my talk page, for agreement between us. We'd have to see if it actually worked well in real articles, but I'd bet money that it will.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not quite, I think that is the very content issue we are debating and it is not resolved. I also think that a lot of the trouble you are having with other editors is because you are making these broad, universal proposals for things where there is not a broad, universal consensus, even in the real world, let alone on wikipedia. (Some "round pegs' are actually oval, and some are even square; they just don't all fit) To some extent, "landrace" as applied to animals is a neologism, and the definition, even in plants, still obviously in flux (unless Camacho Villa's 2005 definition has been universally accepted) I think the FAO is the most reliable source so far (of modern sources, at least) for what a "landrace" animal (at least livestock) is, though if you have found a better source, please provide it (I keep asking, I do not think one has been found?) I would partially agree that the word "landrace" as applied to cats and dogs is probably not within the scope of the FAO definition, but absent one applicable to dog and cat landraces, we have to be careful not to insert definitions where none exist (which is why the OED is helpful, it's a default where there are o better sources) While I do think (tentatively) that Sponenberg's structure of landrace breeds, standardized breeds, etc. is one of the best RS out there and contains the lingo we may ultimately agree upon, we cannot at this time make a blanket policy until we have both articles stabilized. I do not agree that a "breed" is only a "standardized breed", though I have no problem linking "standardized breed" to "breed" where it is appropriate to do so. Given that there are breeds with the name "landrace" in them, I kind of think right now I'd prefer to just link the word "landrace" by itself. There are also a number of articles that use Autochthonous also, and we have yet to even start on that one... Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree that a "breed" is only a "standardized breed", though I have no problem linking "standardized breed" to "breed" where it is appropriate to do so. Then there is no disagreement, basically. What is it you think you're arguing with me about? How can you be telling me I'm wrong when I'm telling you you're right, that "breed" can be used more broadly in some sources than "standardized breed"; we have to write more carefully to disambiguate? I even also prefer "landrace" by itself, but you're the one, not me, insisting that the word "breed" be applied to all distinguishable horse populations, so the solution that presents tiself is "landrace breed", a term we can source to FAO. You know, the source you are so insistent is the most reliable? How are we even still having a disagreement about this?

Minor points we maybe don't even need to discuss, given what I just asked:
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflating content, theory and other stuff[edit]

@Montanabw: I have made a move proposal as a step in resolving a content dispute. I don't think it works to say that we have to resolve the content dispute before there is a move; the point is that the move will split off the less contentious and confusing material (on plants) from the more contentious material where there is not as much agreement and much ambiguity on terms. Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't support the split if we can't agree on a few basic things, like no to editwarring, yes to being civil, and yes to using unambiguous terms. We can even get past most of the content disputes rapidly if you'll just allow the agreement to happen. We're not actually in many of the disagreements you think we're in. However, it will be very divisive (no pun intended) to proceed with a split given the present state of conflict. Nothing you've said here actually addresses the heading you used, so I'm not sure what you were getting at; who is conflating any of these things, where, in what way? The material about animals is not confusing in any way. Who else do you see contending against it? There's very little ambiguity, except when one fails to clarify the word "breed" by indicating whether we mean standardized breeds or standardized+landrace breeds. It's really that simple. There's nothing to argue about when one realizes this. Seriously, nowhere, any time elsewhere on Wikipedia would people argue this much about whether to use clear wording. They'd simply say, "oh, yeah, that's ambiguous" and just clarify it and move on. So, ball's in your court. What on earth is the problem?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Not confusing? Excuse me, but you have citations in that article that go to dead links and you claim the FAO isn't an RS, you make up your own definition of breed and then say with a straight face that there is nothing to argue about? One huge problem is defining animal landraces, and by splitting the articles, we have a simpler situation, plant landraces have more peer0reviewed material - and frankly, I also don't really give a rip about plant stuff in this context (Other than a general attitude of support for genetic diversity and a dislike of factory farming monoculture) so I wouldn't be bothering to edit the plant article much at all, which would reduce the controversy. You also fail to understand that wiki isn't a source for wiki, so when I ask for sources, do not say "go to that article." Unsourced material can be removed. But I'm tired of beating my head against the wall here, Yes, here you ARE just wrong but haven't figured that out yet.Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to itemize this so you'll read it.
  1. There were no actual dead link citations in that article. It's possible that one or another of them will only work as http not https links, in which case I'll fix them. [It was, I fixed it. All you have to do is add "http:" back after |url=.] If there were a real dead link [i.e. resources deleted from original site, or site gone], the way to repair that is to go to the http://Archive.org site and look it up in the "Wayback Machine" form in the middle of that page, and get the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= for the citation from there. Virtually no actually reliable source is ever a truly dead link any more because Archive.org will have copies. No one can use a broken URL as an excuse to start a bogus dispute. Doing so would be WP:BATTLEGROUNDing and WP:Tendentious editing.
  2. I've made up no definition of anything. The Talk:Landrace page is full of requests for you to prove the accusations you're making against me (numerous unexplained claims of text not agreeing with sources, of WP:SYNTH, etc.), and you've failed to do it, ever. Meanwhile, I've proven with more reliable sources than your bureaucratese document, quoted out of context, and dicdef, proven to conflict with peer-reviewed sources, that several of your arguments are demonstrable novel synthesis and redefinition to support a personal view. I seem to recall you accusing me of psychological projection twice. I suspect any independent reviewer would reverse that interpretation. [Update: I'm going through these, and at least one of them is sourced by the very reference cited already in the same sentence! Stop wasting both our time with this WP:DRIVEBY/WP:OVERTAGGING campaign. I consider it demonstrably disruptive at this point.
  3. Your split proposal doesn't make sense in these terms. It is 100% exactly as easy to source material about animal landraces on one page as on another. Sources don't magically appear, or say different things, when you move wikicode to another page here.
  4. Your split proposal would not reduce controversy, since no one is arguing about the plant-related material; X - 0 = X. I asked for three simple agreements in order to support this split as a good idea: Agreement to abide by WP:AGF/WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL, agreement to respect WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS at that article (or "those articles" if split), and agreement to using "landrace breed" and "standardized breed" instead of ambiguously referring to "breed" as if it had a single definition when we know it doesn't, because we both now agree that horse people and sources consider landraces to be "breeds" in the broad sense (i.e. landrace breeds). You pointedly refused all three proposed agreements. Now you're going to berate me for not supporting the split? Of course I can't support it; it's a recipe for additional conflict. You're declaring a triple refusal to avoid further conflict.
  5. No one is citing Wikipedia as a source for itself. I'm telling you where sources are already cited that you can just copy-paste. You and only you are making a claim that so-and-so breed being derived from a landrace is a controversial claim. When we already have a source for it, there's no controversy. Pretending there is just to litter an article with pointless dispute tags or delete material we know is already sourced would simply be disruption to make a point and wikilawyering. If it'll appease you (why I bother, I don't know), I can go deal with that rote material myself, but it's seriously a waste of time to devote any energy to that until the article is nearing GA review stage; non-controversial material does not need to have independent citations until then, when we already know we have sources for it one article over. You've done enough GA/FA improvement, you know this already. Honestly, I don't care much about this silly game. As long as no one's still advancing poor primary and tertiary sources, out of context, as if they trump peer-reviewed secondary sources, these minor nit-picks between us are just that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  6. Whatever. I'm tired of these circular arguments with you. I feel that the well's being poisoned here, the earth scorched, and I'll have no part of it. Keep it to Talk:Landrace. We're both under administrative orders to stop personalizing disputes there, so we'll stop, and stick to the sources and the policies. I've already been doing that, and as usual you've been ignoring it entirely or selectively, and failing to address the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV concerns raised. There's only one road that leads down, and you've got the wheel.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: You still haven't clarified what you mean by "Conflating content, theory and other stuff". Looks very much like an accusation of some kind, but unsupported by anything. Par for this course, I suppose.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
We are equally tired of circular arguments. And I'm tired of your endless bullying and tendentiousness. You need to look in the mirror and recognize that most of the accusations you level at me are equally applicable to yourself. Until that time, there is no sense arguing with you. As for poisoning the well, yup, you use that phrase AFTER I introduced you to it by pointing out that it's your own MO. All for now. Montanabw(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence. The second is entirely mutual, and I'm aware neither of us accept the terms of that criticism from the other. Ditto the third. Wholeheartedly agree with the fourth. (Aside: I don't recall you using the phrase "poisoning the well" until after I used it several days ago (you much more recently used it at WP:RFPP, hours ago). It's a phrase I've used, along with "scorched earth", for over 20 years.) You seem to me to actually be reusing every complaint I make with regard to your edits, just proving the point that the third sentence is entirely mutual. Regardless, I'm going to take this as tacit mutual acceptance that we really are tired of these arguments, and mutually see the same problems in each others' approaches (without conceding the other is correct), and that the episode has not been productive. So, thanks for stating it clearly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Montanabw: Rather than "all for now", how about "all for quite a while"? Perhaps a mutual WP:SHUN is in order, I'd propose for at least 30 days, barring substantive disputes about content that have to be addressed, and even then only doing it in utterly de-personalized terms, e.g. "I believe this edit raises a POV problem, because...", "There seems to be a SYNTH issue with that argument, due to...", as if the editor who made the edits in question did not exist and the edits appeared out of nowhere. I've found this technique helpful in [two-way] disarming disputes of this sort, and I've ended up good collaborators with some people after 1-3 months of such mutual personal avoidance. What say you?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a new set of CAPS article to me. Interesting concept. I am quite reluctant to say anything—yes or no—because past history suggests you may interpret a "deal" differently than I do and thus use it against me later. That said, depersonalizing things is good and wise to try. Also wise is to avoid shouting so loud that one cannot be heard. I do hope that you realize that my views are as legitimate as yours and stated with more good will (at least at first) than you may think. Montanabw(talk) 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly shake on that. (But I did not get what you mean by "That's a new set of CAPS article to me." Not sure which CAPS that refers to.) Maybe no two-way shunning for a while is really necessary, though we can keep it in mind if things get out of hand again.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Reference to a new shortcut to a new article I hadn't seen before; the way WP uses ALLCAPS for shortcuts. Montanabw(talk) 15:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

Yes check.svg Done
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Agriculture

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Agriculture for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 09:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sally Binford[edit]

I'm in an intro to archaeological theory class, and a friend pointed out that there's no article on Sally Binford. I don't have the sources to write anything more than a one-line stub... would you have anything? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not right at hand. Have archaeology text books in a box somewhere. I wonder if anyone's written a biography book about her?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Not that I can find. Information on her seems to be extremely sparse.[9] There's all of one mention of her in the Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
[tps] So that would establish notability at least? Curiously, before I looked at that link closely, I did a similar search of gbooks but without the quotation marks [10] that turns up her date of death as 1993 by suicide [11] (and hmm, "an explicit movie about elderly sexuality in 1974 titled 'A ripple in time'".) In addition, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned Oxford Companion yields "in addition to his academic publications, a key role in the formation of New Archaeology group identity was the symposium organized in 1965 by Lewis and Sally Binford at the American Anthropological Association in Denver (Binford and Binford 1968...)[12]. (Also he had six marriages, which is at least 3 or 4 too many, but I don't suppose you can put that in.) And from the 1996 edition "Lewis Binford and Sally Binford also conducted an analysis of variability in Mousterian chipped-stone artifacts; their work touched off heated debates that rage to this day. Although further research has undermined the findings of some ..." [13]. Buckets of notability. And three sentences at least. [Tiptoeing out now....] —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's enough probably to establish notability. I find plenty of other stuff with Google "Sally+Binford"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, like a Northwest Archaeology article, an interview, etc., just on first page of results. She's co-notable for all the notable work she's credited as doing with Lewis. He's the more famous of the two, but they're often referred to as a pair, like Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, or Marie & Pierre Curie. I don't know loads and loads about her, but I'd be surprised if she's not individually credited on various papers and such.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
My professor today, although I don't know his sources, says that she was far more influential than it appears, but a combination of old-fashioned sexism and the popularity of Lewis combined to keep her from many history books. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
World Cat [14]Neotarf (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Actually, this is better, an advanced WorldCat search by author, with all 55 publications listed. [15]Neotarf (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC guidance requested[edit]

Resolved: Responded at RfC (and ended up moving it - it wasn't quite in the right venue).

I have opened a Request for Comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Animal_breeds. I'm a moderately casual editor, and I've never opened an RfC before, so any guidance in the conduct and resolution of this event would be most appreciated. Thanks! Krychek (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Krychek: I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as it's a top-level MOS issue, not just a WP:MOSCAPS issue.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Won't fix: It was intentional in this case.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conformation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian calendar[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asturian Mountain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in the European Union|protected designation]] "Casin" after the Asturian town of [[Caso]]). The breed is also known as the '''Casina'''<ref name="ASEAMO raza" /><ref name="UNESCO Redes">{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Software solution?[edit]

Per the capitalization discussion (round 20,000) at the relevant MOS page, I did think of one thing that actually could be a way to deescalate this whole thing: As I stated there, the truth is that the real reason WP uses sentence case and not title case (like the rest of the world) is not due to it being consistent with any style manual that I know of, but because the software seems to insist that Capitals and lower-case letters are two different things - for Caps, at least. I remember this from when I first started editing wiki, and how weird it was. I've gotten used to it, but it really is a problem, and not just on breed articles. I've seen capitalization fights over the names of musical works and so on. If WMF could address this somehow, we'd not only deescalate dozens of capitalization disputes (not all, but some) but also save massive bandwidth taken up by redirects from alternative capitalization. I'm not even sure where to start on this, but given your ability to spend more time online that I can, it may be something you are well-suited to investigate. Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. The first problem is that the debate isn't really about article titles, but about usage generally, with article titles being one case, and using in running article prose being the other; the only differences between these are a) initial letter, and b) disambiguation. The second is that the MediaWiki developers are generally very, very slow to change anything. I'm "subscribed" to several bugs in the MW developent Bugzilla site, and many of them have been open for a decade, and simply never get fixed. The answer is typically "the next version of the parser should make this moot", but this rarely happens. Only a trivially small number of the bug fixes (much less additional feature requests) I've been tracking ever get resolved, other than being dismissed as not worth fixing, too hard to fix due to conflicts with other needs in the code, or some other excuse.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, we disagree on a lot of things, but one thing no one can deny is that when you get your teeth into something, you presevere. Seems like poking WMF to fix a legitimate problem would be something you'd be good at. But is anyone actually incharge there? Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Brion Vibber is WMF's lead developer. As for the solution in question, we'd have to get consensus at WP:AT (for starters) to pursue that, since it would upend WP:DIFFCAPS policy. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, because if the feature were added, WP couldn't install it without not only moving all articles that were differentiated only by capitalization to new titles (think 1,000 contentious RMs over which gets the undisambiguated name), but also somehow prevent creation of any new ones in the interim, then roll it out. Otherwise it would result in database collisions, with two or more articles trying to occupy the same titles, in numerous cases.

An approach Peter coxhead and I had talked about before was a template-based one. It came up with regard to species common names, but could just as well be done for breed names. As a pseudocode example, we could have a template, {{breed}}, that capitalized, or didn't, parameters based on input, such that {{breed|p1=American|o2=Quarter}} would have all three words capitalized in default output, and {{breed|p1=St. John's|g2=water|s3=dog}} would capitalized only the "S" in "St." and "J" in "Johns". But each field would have a CSS class, that could be operated on by custom user CSS and javascript. Parameters labeled "p" (proper names) would always be capitalized no matter what, but user scripts could be made to capitalize others by different rules, e.g. never or always capitalize those marked "o" ("official" breed name segments, capitalize by default) or "g" (generic segments, don't capitalize by default), and never capitalize "s" segements (species; if one needed to be capitalized, override it with "o"). This would be used as a meta-template, with a {{dog breed}} template being used with #switch to call the meta-template correctly for the supplied breed name in the list inside the {{dog breed}} template, such that {{dog breed|St. John's water dog}} would translate to {{breed|p1=St. John's|g2=water|s3=dog}}. People who hate having the species name appear after the breed name could even use the class attached to such a parameter to suppress its display.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

All of which would be over-complex. 1000 articles would be easier to fix than the alternative. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Not my problem. I didn't create the complexity; it's inherent in the problem. I've offered a solution, and it would be functional. I may well implement it myself, and whether you choose it make use of it or not isn't my concern.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Capitals and MOS guidance[edit]

Not wishing to take up yet more space on the MOS talk page, I thought I'd make a further point here. An example of guidance that just doesn't work is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Compass points. How is an editor supposed to know whether a phrase is an "informal conventional name"? This isn't an abstract issue; I encounter it all the time applied to the distribution of plants. Should I revert this edit or not? I simply don't know. So we end up with completely inconsistent capitalization of compass points all over the place. The MOS must be useable by the great majority of editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the example you meant (the diff shows a "Defendent" -> "Defendant" change; "Defendent" is either a typo or a Briticism, and shouldn't be used in reference to a US legal case, where the term of art is "Defendant" (and we'd only capitalize it like that in titles of cases). There are lots of things in MOS I loathe, but #Compass_points isn't that troublesome to me. At worst it seems to generate unnecessary RM discussions sometimes, and some editwarring over "northeast" vs. "north-east" (I think it should explicitly cross-reference WP:ENGVAR there; edited it to do so). Regardless, compass points shouldn't be capitalized unless in a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange, when I hover over the "this edit" link above the "tool tip" shows what I meant, but clicking it goes to the wrong one; however, it was my error. This edit replaced "southern Texas" by "Southern Texas". How do I know if this is a "proper name" or what the MOS calls an "informal conventional name"? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We will never eliminate capitalization/capitalisation and ENGVAR fights on wiki. It is important though, to respect their origins. Some disputes, such as ENGVAR, usually can be resolved in a logical way - by showing respect to the people doing the actual work and the actual practice of actual experts. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but that's not the problem here. I've extensively edited articles in US English (like Cactus) and am quite happy to respect its styles – such as not hyphenating words like "south-east" – when I can understand them (I confess to being baffled by US rules about "which" versus "that"). My concern here is that the MOS currently gives guidance which simply can't be followed because "informal conventional name" is unclear. I have the same worry about capitalizing breed names. At least the enthusiasts for capitalizing the English names of birds could give clear guidance: follow one specific published list. There's no such simple source for breed names. "Capitalize only those words capitalized in normal running text" can be followed by virtually all editors. Guidance in the MOS should be clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
And where it is too "clear," some people will not accept a time for IAR - I dread the next round of "let's move American Quarter Horse" to "American quarter horse." At which point, I will no doubt spell out in full some variant of WTF! FFS! and start ripping my hair out! Frankly, I've had quite enough with just discussions about "Shetland Pony" versus "Shetland pony" (which seems a non issue, save in situations where we have a Hackney horse - called simply a "Hackney" in horse land (and not a "hackney", either... ) AND a Hackney Pony - all of which is why I favor letting the RS of experts determine the standard capitalization and not a bed of Procrustes approach where one size is forced to fit all, but few fit...! Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Well, that's precisely what's going to happen if you and Jlan and a handful of others don't stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either agree on a convention that doesn't sharply conflict with sources and with policy, or enough people are going to get fed up with it to just impose the extant rules, which will be decapitalization across the board except for proper names like "American" and "Shetland". I'm basically personally responsible for derailing a motion at WT:MOS just recently to do this, and if y'all won't settle for my alternative proposal there, it's surely just a matter of time, especially because I'll stop trying to head off any further decapitalization moves. I've done all I can to try to help you lot broker a compromise, but yous would rather fight, fight, fight about ever single letter and character. I'm done. The writing is on the WP:BIRDCON wall. You keep saying you're trying to follow the sources, but you're going about it in a cherry-picking manner, preferring only those that support the capitalization system you personally prefer, then switching to support those that help out your "friend" Jlan when he wants to argue the opposite case, etc. Waste of time. There's nothing at all Procrustean about following extant policies and following the sources that are actually reliable about what the formal name of a breed is (the bodies that issued them).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This has drifted a bit off my point, which was not whether your alternative proposal is "right" but whether it is practical. Breed standards are issued by many organizations, which don't always agree on the name, let alone its style. (Thus as the title of a breed standard, the US Kennel Club has "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" [16], the UK and New Zealand Kennel Clubs both have "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)" [17] [18].) Putting in the MOS capitalize only where published breed standards consistently capitalize the name doesn't provide editors with practical guidance, unless you can link to a list of the "published breed standards" to be consulted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I think such cases are easily resolved:
  1. Where 2+ breed standard bodies use the same name but capitalize it differently, use the less capitalized version, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS (if in doubt, don't capitalize).
  2. Where they use essentially the same name but a different spelling, use the WP:COMMONNAME (with a nod to WP:ENGVAR - prefer British English for British breeds, etc.
  3. Where they use basically the same name but handled an adjective differently, "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. Welsh Corgi (Cardigan), WP:NATURAL would have us prefer the non-parenthetical version.
  4. Where it's a matter of word order only, e.g. "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Welsh Corgi Cardian", WP:COMMONNAME.
  5. Where is a long vs. short name ("Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Cardigan Corgi"), WP:COMMONNAME, with perhaps a preference for the shorter version, per WP:CONCISE.
  6. Where is a separate breed with its own name vs. a subbreed in a division ("Cardian Corgi", vs "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)", use WP:SUMMARY style until there's reason to split, then treat it as a separate topic, noting in both cases that some registries differ on whether it's a full-status breed in it is own right, or a division of a breed, a subbreed.
  7. Where is a serparate breed with both a unique and derived name (e.g. Cymric vs Longhair Manx, and Himalayan vs. Longhair Siamese, and Exotic vs. Shorthair Persian), prefer the unique name if it is not uncommon [[per WP:PRECISE amd usually also WP:CONCISE, though it's possible some unique names could be longer than derived ones).
  8. Where it just has two totally different names, "German Shepherd Dog" (yes, the dog people really insist on including "Dog") vs. "Alsatian", WP:COMMONNAME again, with perhaps a preference for WP:CONCISE.
  9. Where a registry wants to include the species name, capitalizes as part of the former breed name, but a competing one does not, then don't do it.
  • For purposes of these tests, use only established national and international registries that cover more than one breed (i.e. notable organizations).
  • Look at capitaliziation in running prose, not headings/titles.
  • Do not rely upon capitalization in those written in foreign languages unless they have the same capitalization conventions as English (which many not be any at all).
  • Do not rely on breed "encyclopedias" and other tertiary works, as they are prone to overcapitalization of all entries, as are all other forms of field guide, as a form as emphasis for easy visual scanning.
I'm not sure that left any cases unaccounted for, and I just rattled that off, off the top of my head, so it's not that hard. That paragraph could be reworked into a checklist of bulleted rules in about 5 minutes. [I did it, it took 2.] Each article should, in its infobox, have links to published breed standards. This is very poorly implemented in most of the livestock categories vs. pet-animal categories, unfortunately. Name sourcing discussions may catalyze them to work on these articles to improve that. See Cymric cat's infobox for a good one, that's pretty complete and annotates where registries don't allow it or reclassify it.

PS: On which/that (from post above): Just write proper English as you like. Most highly literate North American and Commonwealth readers follow the same pattern, and if someone from more of a high school English level reverts you (I get reverted on subjunctive all the time), just move on; not worth fighting over. As anyone with a linguistics background knows, the which/that distinction is largely a fiction of Elizabethan through Victorian high society, and wasn't regularly reflected in lower-class writing, so the "wrong" usage has been around for a very long time, and been used by plenty of popular writers of "classics", like Charles Dickens. I prefer the make the distinctions, and to observe who/whom distinction, etc., but avoid getting into protracted arguments about it. You can often return a week later and fix it in the course of a more substantive edit, and no one will notice.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so it can be done – if your "alternative proposal" is agreed, I hope you will write up the above at the appropriate MOS subpage. Is it worth the complexity? Not to me, but then I don't care about breed names, so now I'll leave it to those who do... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arab Winter[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arab Winter. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your behaviour[edit]

 Rejected
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No further antagonistic communication is invited from either Justlettersandnumbers or Montanabw.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Your behaviour in this wiki appears to be out of hand. Please, in your own interest, get a grip on yourself. You must be aware that remarks such as "So SMcCandlish 2, Jlan 0. Shall we go for round 2?", "Game over, please try again" or "my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching WP:IDLI style. Osu!" will appear to others as indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You must also be aware of the very considerable resentment against you in some areas. Please consider very carefully whether it is wise to provide ammunition to those who might at some point wish to express that resentment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's called a sense of fucking humor. You and two other guys who hate my guts isn't a "very considerable resentment against" me, it just you taking things too personally. Get off my talk page unless you have something constructive to discuss, such as why you're pushing POV and anti-RS positions at articles like Arapawa pig. See you back on the noticeboards, since you evidently won't stop. The only battleground mentality is yours. I have plenty of diffs demonstrating WP:TAGTEAM behavior by you both and Montanabw, and treating disputes as a form of sport/entertainment you collaborate to foster more of. I do at this point consider it unwise to "provide ammunition" – your words – to you, because of your battleground mentality, lack of a sense of humor, and proven trackrecord of gaming the system. See WP:SHUN. Unless you and I have no choice but to communicate about something, in which case it should be done impersonally as if the other party were a machine, we need to not contact each other for any reason for at least a month. Same goes for you, Montanabw; I've made every effort to find common ground with you, but you personally attacked me at Talk:Arapawa pig again. I'm tired of your WP:GANG bullshit.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxt[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Bxt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxtn[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Bxtn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gbq[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Gbq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles[edit]

Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Glossary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary end[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Glossary end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Term[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Term has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Defn[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Defn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ghat[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Ghat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Response requested[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SMcCandlish. You have new messages at Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
David Levy 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Glossary templates[edit]

Thanks very much for the heads-up. I have weighed in. - PKM (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)