User talk:Seav

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

Tagalog help needed[edit]

Hello Seav, I'm contacting you because we need some Tagalog translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on tl.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Tagalog Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

When In Manila AfD[edit]

How many reliable sources (total) would you say it needs to be retained in the encyclopedia? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEBCRIT does not specify any number and I think I agree with this. I think prominent coverage by 2 reliable sources may meet the "multiple" criteria if the sources are extremely reliable. But if the sources are not always reliable or if the coverage in the sources is debatable on whether they are trivial or not, then more than 2 sources may be needed. I think the discussion should center on the quality of the sources and on how the sources covered the subject in question rather than on the quantity of sources. --seav (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you about the discussion, but I asked how many because you brought up a quantitative point ("not enough"). I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Title stability[edit]

I don't know if it's conscious or intentional, but it seems to me that many people have at least an unconscious preference for title instability. They seem to favor ambiguity in the rules so that they can apply "judgment" in individual title decisions. I really think this is an underlying motivation in some, which is the only way I can explain why they resist clarity and seek "wiggle room" in the rules governing title selection. Just an observation. --B2C 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"And from there follow B2C's relentness years of working to marginalize the value of recognizability, to get to where the only acceptable title is the shortest possible title, so that editors are left without anything to discuss."[1]


Yes, Dicklyon (talk · contribs), I want to leave editors without anything to discuss ABOUT TITLES so we can focus on, you know, article content! --B2C 00:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not instability that I favor, but better titles. The inflexible rule-based approach is not the best, in the opinion of most who has joined discussions about it. If you are not a fan of discussing titles, please just drop out of the discussions, and things will get on fine without you. But since when have you cared much about article content? Aren't most of your edits on WT:AT and RM discussions? I see you're only about 7% in article space (compared to my 55%); so no thanks for trying to help me spend more time editing articles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Dicklyon (talk · contribs), yes, I personally am more interested in working on title stabilization than working much on article content directly myself. I'm but one editor; I don't believe I alone can make nearly as much of an improvement on WP in the area of article content as I can in the area of title stabilization (improvement in title stabilization frees countless editors and admins to work on article content instead of pouring time and energy into pointless back-and-forth title discussions).

I understand your intent is not title instability in titles; your goal is "better" titles.

My position is that making titles more descriptive, or more recognizable to those unfamiliar with the topic in question, does not improve them to any significant degree. As others have noted, Wikipedia would work almost as well if titles were randomly selected gibberish strings. The improvement of having a human readable title is already marginal; any further refining beyond that is inherently of negligible benefit, at best. Other who share this view believe the correct solution is walk away from title discussions and just let those who care battle it out, pointlessly. I'm of the view that we should try to limit fueling the insanity, and the fuel to this insanity is ambiguous guidance.

Further, an unintended consequence of trying to "make titles better", makes countless titles that are currently stable, unstable. Criteria that does not give clear direction, but instead can be referenced to equally support two or more choices, simply provides grist for WP:JDLI arguments, and makes titles subject to the whims of whoever happens to show up at any given discussion. What we should be striving for is a situation in which no matter who participates, the result is the same. The result should not be dependent on the makeup of whoever shows up at a given discussion, as it currently often is. Conversely, by tightening up the policy and guidelines that govern title selection, the titles are no less good, and become more stable. That allows more editors, like you, to make more real content improvements on Wikipedia. --B2C 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Hello, Seav. Instead of adding Category:Disambiguation pages to any new disambiguation pages, please add the {{Disambiguation}} template instead. This automatically includes the category, and also does other auto-categorization and formatting that is needed for WikiProject Disambiguation. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Slight change in the White Album move discussion[edit]

The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ph seal rizal.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal rizal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

, South Australia[edit]

You should {{G7}} such accidental page creations. FTFY � (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Core Infrastructure Initiative[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Core Infrastructure Initiative at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ¿3family6 contribs 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Core Infrastructure Initiative[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


I suspect much of the issue with Barandal and others like it relates to WP:BIAS, not on the part of individual editors but Wikipedia itself. As I mentioned in the discussion, I live in Australia. Wikipedia has (quite literally) articles for every single suburb in Australia, from the historically-named, heavily-populated, and easily-notable ones through to the less-than-200-people rural back-waters mentioned once in some historical sub-division document from the local council. Nonetheless, nobody in their right mind would nominate one of those for deletion. Any such attempt would be WP:SNOW closed within hours per WP:GEOLAND. I don't think that AFD would make for a good GEOLANDS test-case but if you come across similar things in the future, let me know. Normally in discussions that long there's plenty of animosity but that one has been genuinely interesting and pleasant to participate in. Stlwart111 06:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For your engaging and collegial conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barandal. Keep up the great work! Stlwart111 06:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Seav. You have new messages at d:Wikidata:Project chat#P988 and P1228.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Interwiki talkback}} or {{Itb}} template.