User talk:SMcCandlish

Most recent poster here: Fowl vet (talk).

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

As of 2014-06-08 , SMcCandlish is Active.
I'll reply to your message within 24 hours if possible.

WikiStress level

Wikimood
[purge]	[edit]

User talk:SMcCandlish/IP

Unresolved old stuff

Cueless billiards

Unresolved

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

Extended content

Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Crud fits for sure. And if the variant in it is sourceable, I'm sure some military editor will fork it into a separate article eventually. I think at least some variants of bar billiards are played with hands and some bagatelle split-offs probably were, too (Shamos goes into loads of them, but I get them all mixed up, mostly because they have foreign names). And there's bocce billiards, article I've not written yet. Very fun game. Kept my sister and I busy for 3 hours once. Her husband (Air Force doctor) actually plays crud on a regular basis; maybe there's a connection She beat me several times, so it must be from crud-playing. Hand pool might be its own article eventually. Anyway, I guess it depends upon your "categorization politics". Mine are pretty liberal - I like to put stuff into a logical category as long as there are multiple items for it (there'll be two as soon as you're done with f.b., since we have crud), and especially if there are multiple parent categories (that will be the case here), and especially especially if the split parallels the category structure of another related category branch (I can't think of a parallel here, so this criterion of mine is not a check mark in this case), and so on. A bunch of factors really. I kind of wallow in that stuff. Not sure why I dig the category space so much. Less psychodrama, I guess. >;-) In my entire time here, I can only think of maybe one categorization decision I've made that got nuked at CfD. And I'm a pretty aggressive categorizer, too; I totally overhauled Category:Pinball just for the heck of it and will probably do the same to Category:Darts soon. PS: I'm not wedded to the "cueless billiards" name idea; it just seemed more concise than "cueless developments from cue sports" or whatever.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I have no "categorization politics". It's not an area that I think about a lot or has ever interested me so it's good there are people like you. If there is to be a category on this, "cueless billiards" seems fine to me. By the way, just posted Yank Adams as an adjunct to the finger billiards article I started.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Cool; I'd never even heard of him. This one looks like a good DYK; just the fact that there was Finger Billiards World Championship contention is funky enough, probably. You still citing that old version of Shamos? You really oughta get the 1999 version; it can be had from Amazon for cheap and has a bunch of updates. I actually put my old version in the recycle bin as not worth saving. Heh. PS: You seen Stein & Rubino 3rd ed.? I got one for the xmas before the one that just passed, from what was then a really good girlfriend. >;-) It's a-verra, verra nahce. Over 100 new pages, I think (mostly illustrations). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC) If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the Blue Book of Pool Cues too for under $200 total. Here it is for $160, plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC) It's not IPs they're logging, it's your credit card. You have to give them one in order to get the trial so that they can automatically charge you if you miss the cancellation deadline. Regarding the Blue Book, of all these books, that's the one that get's stale, that is, if you use it for actual quotes, which I do all the time, both for answer to questions and for selling, buying, etc. Yeah I start procrastinating too. I did all that work on Mingaud and now I can't get myself to go back. I also did reams of research on Hurricane Tony Ellin (thugh I found so little; I really felt bad when he died; I met him a few times, seemed like a really great guy), Masako Katsura and others but still haven't moved on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Ah, the credit card. I'll have to see if the PayPal plugin has been updated to work with the new Firefox. If so, that's our solution - it generates a new valid card number every time you use it (they always feed from your single PayPal account). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC) PayPal Plugin ist kaput. Some banks now issue credit card accounts that make use of virtual card numbers, but mine's not one of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a newspaperarchive.com three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Sad... How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Reading stuff from that era, it's also amazing how important billiards (in the three-ball sense) was back then, with sometimes multiple-page stories in newspapers about each turn in a long match, and so on. It's like snooker is today in the UK. PS: I saw that you found evidence of a billiards stage comedy there. I'd never heard of it! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Jackpot. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Nice find! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at the main page

Unresolved

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

Extended content

Look at the main page --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Since you don't appear to have seen this near to the time I left it, it might be a little cryptic without explanation. Masako Katsura was today's featured article on January 31, 2011.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Supah-dupah! That kicks. WP:CUE's (and your?) first TFA, yes?! And yeah I have been away a lot lately. Long story. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Indeed, my first, though I have another in the works (not billiards related). I think François Mingaud could be a candidate in the near future. I really wanted to work it up to near FA level before posting it but another user created it recently, not realizing my draft existed, and once they did realize, copied some of my content without proper copyright attribution and posted to DYK. I have done a history merge though the newer, far less developed content is what's seen in the article now. I'm going to merge the old with the new soon. Glad to see your back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) My front and sides are visible too. ;-) Anyway, glad you beat me to Mingaud. I'd been thinking of doing that one myself, but it seemed a bit daunting. I may have some tidbits for it. Lemme know when your merged version goes up, and I'll see what I have that might not already be in there. Probably not earthshaking, just a few things I found in 1800s-1910s books. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some more notes on Crystalate

Unresolved

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

Extended content

Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[1]; info about making records:[2]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[3]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991[4]; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:[5]. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I've worked most of it in. Fences&Windows 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Cool! From what I can tell, entirely different parties held the trademark in different markets. I can't find a link between Crystalate Mfg. Co. Ltd. (mostly records, though billiard balls early on) and the main billiard ball mfr. in the UK, who later came up with "Super Crystalate". I'm not sure the term was even used in the U.S. at all, despite the formulation having been originally patented there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAL

Unresolved

 – Not done yet, last I looked.

Extended content

No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Unresolved

 – Needs to be renewed, if I come back.

Extended content

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Account activation codes have been emailed. To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1 The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code. If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations. HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Unresolved

 – Needs to be renewed, if I come back.

Extended content

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent. If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi. A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations. Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Yay! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Circa

Unresolved

 – Need to file the RfC.

Extended content

This edit explains how to write "ca.", which is still discouraged at MOS:#Abbreviations, WP:YEAR, WP:SMOS#Abbreviations, and maybe MOS:DOB, and after you must have read my complaint and ordeal at WT:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Circa. Either allow "ca." or don't allow "ca.", I don't care which, but do it consistently. Art LaPella (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Sounds like a good WP:RFC. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC) It's been hard to get opinions on circa in the past. Anyway, can I undo that edit, until when and if someone wants to edit the other guidelines to match? If we leave it there indefinitely, nobody will notice except me. Art LaPella (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC) I don't care; this will have to be dealt with in an RfC anyway. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Done (now I don't need to wonder if the RfC will ever be acted on :) ) Art LaPella (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright

Unresolved

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

Extended content

That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I did a bunch of archiving yesterday. This page was HUGE. It'll get there again. I'd forgotten MCQ existed. Can you please add it to the DAB hatnote at top of and "See also" at bottom of WP:COPYRIGHT? Its conspicuous absence is precisely why I ened up at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright! Haven't seen your balkline response yet; will go look. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hee Haw

Unresolved

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

Extended content

Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers and editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. Landrace has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and breed not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What is happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether pig Latin is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys – and the naming form that took, i.e. Poitou donkey not Poitou (donkey), I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: [6] or breed or [7]. I think you and I agree that the Palomino horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the Landrace article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split Natural breed out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a traditional breed, though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to landrace now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Aye, it's on my to-do list. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians). The good thing about breeds wrt Wikipedia is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Wikipedia to do so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I have been reluctant to use landrace much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before wikipedia either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between selective breeding and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like Kiger Mustang, which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, Chiweenies? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC) The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of corn growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that MRSA is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through mostly natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the St Johns water dog and Maine Coon cat are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Yep. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons gardens are walled

Unresolved

 – 'We really need an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide.... Still do! Good potential project!

Extended content

Looking at Montanabw's reaction, I think sometimes you fail to look through the eyes of the editors in a narrow field, and end up with enemies instead of friends. I actually left off editing horse articles years ago because of the controversies, and the hammering out of consensus in that project has been decidedly non-trivial. It's important to remember that a local optimum is always optimal, locally, and that getting to a global optimum can involve considerable work, work that many editors thought they had already done. To me, the best way to start out is always "Here are some more general issues I perceive; I see that you do things differently. How can I help you deal with your problems in a way that will meet my goals?" In the case of the bird folks, this probably wouldn't have worked, but I think It's always a good place to start.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I agree in the abstract, but I've never been good at that sort of politics. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC) PS: This may sound like a "my logic is bigger than your logic" nit-pick, but I consider it a serious issue: A major and worsening problem on WP, especially as the generalist editorship continues to decline in numbers and activity levels, is that wikiprojects are becoming increasingly balkanized into stand-offish blocs. Despite several ARBCOM decisions against projects bucking consensus and making up their own conflicting rules, and despite a comparatively recent but clear policy against it, at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, they continue to do it anyway, with increased feelings of righteousness. Per WP:OWN, no topic or field on WP is a walled garden, but some projects do not appear to believe this. I don't know what the solution is, but I have serious misgivings about what WP is going to be like 5 years from now in this regard if something doesn't change. One idea I've had, inspired a bit by the undoing of WP:Esperanza and a CfD several years ago that move all the wikiproject "members" categories to read "participants", is to propose that we abandon the term "wikiproject" entirely, and use something more verbal, that doesn't sound like a club, or worse yet a militia, one can join. Maybe "wikiwork" or something like that: WikiWork Botany, WikiWork Cats, etc. PS: My Granny's garden wasn't walled, but sprawled all the way to the mailbox at the sidewalk. :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 11:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Some are more interested in methods, others in results. Certainly, WP:OWN is a problem; otherwise it wouldn't have a shortcut. Randy in Boise is also a problem, and editors' reactions to that often appear from the outside to be WP:OWN. And over time they can turn into WP:OWN, when an editor starts to believe that's the only way to counter the Randys. One approach is to wade in with policies, guidelines, and sanctions, whip up support from editors who have an abstract interest, and make life so miserable for the Randys and the "owners" that they leave Wikipedia. In my experience, the most knowledgeable editors are the first to leave (I almost wrote "best editors", but one solution to expert retention is to not care, and only retain compliant editors). It seems that a lot of the pushback you are going to get at WP:EQUINE is over WP:COMMONNAME issues. You only meant to sweep the floor, but you knocked over a chess game. The word that immediately comes to mind is "inefficient". My most memorable walled garden was the atrium in the house of Maurice K. Temerlin in Norman, Oklahoma, filled with lush greenery. My first thought was that it provided a safe place for Lucy, but as far as I could tell, they only let her into it under supervision.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ 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⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ 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⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Chapeau

... 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(^Õل^ō)ˀ 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(^Õل^ō)ˀ 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(^Õل^ō)ˀ 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

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

Don't delete this! -

		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(^Õل^ō)ˀ 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!

		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

		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!

	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

		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!

	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⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Heroic Barnstar

		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

		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⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Current threads

ANI Sandstein thread

Resolved

 – Moot - that ANI request closed without fixing anything.

I have refactored the discussion so as not to discourage participation by more editors. [8] (They already know what we think, we want to know what they think.) This means I have left only a one- or two-sentence statement after the !vote. I hope I have chosen the most representative and neutral statements to represent your views, if not, let me know. —Neotarf (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm interested in resolution much more than venting. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Great to see you back here

Even if under difficult circumstances, WP without you is like having a major piece of furniture missing from the living room. :-) Tony (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I'm about 80% decided to leave again, and 20% decided to try one last time to resolve the Sandstein dispute, via RFARB. I give that low odds of success because of pro-admin bias, and already-declared prejudice against the case by one of the Arbs (I'll demand his recusal of course). If I don't receive satisfaction that way, I'll probably just walk permanently. I've given the community about an entire year to fix this, and nothing's come of it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that NE Ent put back their version of WP:ARBATC#Log of notifications, not Sandstein's (except for Neotarf). If it stays that way, that actually effectively voids my main complaint (a false accusation against me, by Sandstein, appearing in that log, and nothing I or anyone else said ever getting it removed despite it being defamatory). The 1-month MOS topic ban by Sandstein is still an issue, but as it came during US tax season and I was too busy in meatspace to appeal it before it expired, it's kind of moot except as evidence if he pursues any grossly WP:INVOLVED action against me. I guess I'll sit on this a while and see if the ARBATC log changes stay as-is. if they do, I might return to editing. I have a couple of articles worth working up, would like to finish MOS:ORGANISMS, and have a few other things I could be interested in doing here. I'm still bitterly disappointed, however, in the admin community's abject failure to do anything to resolve this matter for an entire year, no matter how many times it was raised. My confidence in this project as a whole has not magically been restored. I still think there are massive problems with how Wikipedia is being administered. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tony1:Looks like I'll stick around for a while. :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Might want to remove yourself from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, then . Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 17:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Right! Thanks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

ARCA

Resolved

 – Noted, and I participated there.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation NE Ent 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ARCA edit

Resolved

 – Moot; ARCA request is closed now.

I'm a brand-new clerk for ArbCom, and stilling learning how to do things. One of the clerks task is to make sure that statements don't get too long and that the tone remains civil. There is a 500 word limit for statements; your original statement was well within the limit (so thank-you). I've confirmed that succinct responses to questions from the arbs should fall outside that limit, as would make sense. However, I note that a single section added by you is over 700 words, and I sense an increase in the intensity of language. I appreciate that you collapsed the section, which helps with page management, but presumably you expect it to be read by all arbs, so the collapse doesn't achieve much in terms of brevity. I plan to coordinate with other more experienced clerks for counsel, so at this time I'm not planning to take any action other than to urge you to take a deep breath. You are trying to make some points, a wall of text with strident language will undercut your points.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted. It is just frustrating that after a year the same party keeps trying to make the same logically and factually invalid points as always. I'm amenable to whatever you recommend, and will right now go reduce the size of that section. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: My actual intent/expectation was that Arbs would NOT want to read it, because it's not germane to "what to do to resolve this dispute"; it's just a "for the record" response to Sandstein's questionable statements. This is one place, finally, where Sandstein can't actually close the discussion himself against me, despite being WP:INVOLVED in my view and that of many others. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't had to live it, so I won't insult you by saying I totally understand, but I have seen many legitimate complaints derailed when the main point gets lost. I appreciate that it wasn't intended for the arbs, but we expect our arbs to read what is presented, and while they may realize they didn't need to read it when they get to the end, it is kinda too late. I appreciate your willingness to dial it back. If you read carefully, I think you will see that many arbs are sympathetic to the issues, I hope you make their life easier by letting them focus on the main issues. Thanks for your understanding.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 04:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Stanton

Glad to see you're back (even if only for a short time). Just wanted to let you know while your eyes are here, that I for one certainly appreciate your edits over the years! Btw, in your absence blah.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with you on the navbox issue, and glad it wasn't deleted. There's a conformist tendency here to assume that "different" means "bad" and must be suppressed. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 04:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:Looks like I'll stick around for a while. :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Resolved

 – That resolves 1 of the 3 major issues with the WP:ARBATC enforcement and notification logs (this took care of another one), and it took over a year, for no reason. It's just enough progress on the issue that I will tentatively end my wiki-retirement over the matter and see if things improve with the allegedly forthcoming DS review. They'd better or more people will leave in droves, including me, permanently.

The clarification request involving you has been archived. The original comments made by the arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Good news

Glad to see this! Bishonen | talk 23:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, it only took over a year, to resolve only 2/3 of the issues that led up to my leaving. Better than nothing! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 March

Resolved

 – 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:

• On the Pétanque page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are now a template editor

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

• All template-protected pages
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back making improvements to templates. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to be back. I wish this template-editor access stuff had come about around, say, 8 years ago when I and various others were suggesting it. Lots of "the sky is falling" nonsense along the fallacious lines of "we trust admins to do everything, and only trust admins to do anything" kept it from happening for years and years. Sorry I wasn't around for whatever proposal finally succeeded. My two abortive RfAs were actually pretty much entirely about a need to edit protected templates; I didn't really want to do much of anything else administrative. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  04:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A tip

If you're tagging a redirect, make sure the tag goes above the REDIRECT code. If it goes below, the redir still works, and the admin will get go to the target (and think the problem, whatever it was, is sorted). Anything above the redirect code stops the redir working. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  16:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Glossaries talk v404.23

Hi Stanton, I know a lot of this has been discussed on various pages and been re-hashed before, however, I would like some clarification as to the issues and how to address this going forward before I try to assist in any way and break or re-release any bugs into the system(s).

Firstly, my overall impression is that your contributions are numerous, greatly admired and in the most part very effective and that glossaries have a life of their own and can be used in two main ways, that is; 1. Interwiki links and 2. Links or parsed through to any other site using wiki as a resource.

So now to the crux, preamble..

1. Definitions should be to the greatest extent possible be simple and easy to understand preferably even by the general public, to that end, if the definition extends to more than one, clear and concise sentence this goal has not been met and should therefore be re-worded.
2. The wiki mark up works perfectly for interwiki uses.
3. The errors in parsing are somewhat self inflicted, by either inconsistent mark up or too long a definition, see Glossary of cue sports terms#training template.

Crux, questions, possible solution and the way forward, attempted in a top to bottom approach..

1. Make use of the main article on wiki, i.e. each glossary has a main article link at the top of page to reduce any and all lead sections to the essence of what this glossary is trying to achieve and not explaining the subject matter.
2. To the greatest extent possible avoid self referencing, so that each lead section and definition can stand alone.
3. A consistent TOC, that promotes best practice, is concise for the purpose of each individual glossary is defined.
4. The wiki mark up "Anchor|anchor name*(*=term and variants of term)|term" is used on all singular defined items. I believe this method has no known issue for single sentence definitions.
5. XML stanardised mark up is avoided if at all possible and promoted in its simplest form if not.
6. Multiple definitions are avoided if at all possible, making use instead of tags to split the terms, i.e. US, UK etc., include a see also where appropriate.
7. Definitions that have their own main article are linked to such.
8. All pictures are removed to reduce size to increase the speed of load time.
9. The default sort and category mark up is detailed.
10. MOS updated to reflect agreed best practice.

This should assist in the general editors, (non-programmers etc.) to have more buy-in and ability to expand any glossary. I know this is not a quick fix and I am more than happy to assist in any way, I have spent some time reading the current MOS, issues log, bug reports etc. etc. and a lot of the issues and fixes are inconsistent and confusing. Despite the length of this section, believe it or not, I think I have missed something, lol.
Going forward, 1. I believe I could write up a TOC best practice section relatively quickly. 2. If you could provide a parsing error that corrupts wiki mark up, where the above conditions are met, so that I can start working on a solution. and finally 3. Can we start some new categories to track and monitor performance and issues effectively.
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what concerns you are trying to address; the above seems to be a mixture of technical and editorial concerns that are not particularly connected, many are solutions in search of problems that aren't clearly demonstrated to exist, and some of it doesn't make sense to me, as-given (e.g. "XML standardized markup is avoided if at all possible..." - why would we avoid doing standard things?) I also don't understand what "Glossaries talk v404.23" refers to; Wikipedia talk:GLOSSARIES has no thread that seems to involve these numbers. Perhaps most importantly, I feel you're sorely confusing an encyclopedic glossary with a dictionary; glossary entries here should be precisely as long as they need to be to properly inform readers. An arbitrary one-sentence length limit is what would ensure failure at meeting our encyclopedic goal with such entries; see previous debates on the survival of Glossary of cue sports terms, the "flagship" glossary article, for well-articulated debates about this. In fact, I would kind of insist on you reading all of that.  :-). Anyway, I'm sure there are in fact entries that are too long-winded in some glossaries here, but that's an editorial problem precisely the same as any other content verbosity issue, e.g. in a paragraph on a non-glossary page, and hasn't anything to do with glossaries in particular. Please try to articulate separately what you see as issues that need to be addressed, and we should look at them to see which are problems to do with glossary markup and structure, and which are not, which can be addressed by technical changes, which by guidance changes, which are not valid, which are more general and not tied to glossaries at all, etc. This should probably be done at WT:GLOSSARIES. PS: The fact that it's complicated is not all that big a deal. Nothing requires anyone to use the richer form of glossary markup, just like nothing forces anyone to use our painful wikitable markup, or geeky template language. Editors who have such WP:COMPETENCE do well at that kind of work here, those that don't do not, and so something else, while those that do reformat after them. No one is mandatorily made to use our headache-inducing citation templates, for example. Just add facts and mention the sources, and someone later will handle the coding. It's the same here, with glossaries. We don't dumb-down the technical capability of features here on the basis that noobs can't understand them. We just accept that they don't *yet*, and work around it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stanton, I certainly was not trying to authoritatively tell any glossary editor or potential editor "This is the way, and the only way".
The approach I was using was listing all issues on glossaries specifically and creating a listing of all MOS requirements to enable educated debate and therefore a standardised and a "as simple as possible" guide to all editors, the listing was supposed to be holistic, covering the whole approach and communication of such to assist any future editors, which is why it mixed technical, editorial and guidance aspects.
To address your points above, one at a time

1. XML standardized markup is avoided if at all possible - to try to promote the effective wiki mark up that works fine in 90% of the case, using XML only if absolutely necessary, in its simplest and most effective form fit for purpose.
2. Glossaries talk v404.23 - A number I made up in reference to how much talk has already happened, without clear and concise guidance being agreed and published.
3. encyclopedic glossary - Totally agreed, however first use should be the main article, extra verbosity on the glossary detracts from its impact and readability, the "one-sentence" approach is to try to ensure the 3 fundamentals (Clear, Concise and Precise) is addressed for each entry as best one can.
4. Finally "noobs" and "Complicated" was not mentioned, however, "noobs" should be encouraged and over complicating coding, mark-up and templates for a most often self-inflicted issue is in the long term detracting from the whole and the basis of wiki.
   All my clear points above stand true for glossaries, some also apply to other article types as well, so?
   I assume (bad practice I know) from your response, that this is your baby, and any assistance is either not welcome or wanted, unless I have read this wrong.
   Kind regards
   The Original Filfi (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Original Filfi: Nothing's my "baby", but it's still unclear to me what particular problems you think are in evidence. Given how much there is to do around here to make a better encyclopedia, I take an "if it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it" view by default. Some of what you're saying doesn't really track for me, like the discussion of XML. We're not using XML, but XHTML, and using it properly - there are features of that markup language specifically designed for things like glossaries. To return to your original list, it seems a mixture of advice, complaints and technical requirements, and is hard to parse for anything with a clear meaning. I'll retair your orignal numbering, through your short list of 3 points, long list of 10 points, paragraph-embedded list of 3 more points, and followup list of yet another 4 numbered things.

First three:

1. This is a discussion that's not been had yet. I don't think you'll find a consensus to limit glossary entries to one sentence; it's an arbitrary "one size fits all" approach that does not fit all.
2. What wikimarkup in particular? How broadly are you defining it. "Inter-" between what wikis? Is this an observation, a request, an expectation? Is it an implication that you're objecting to something, desiring to remove code of some kind? Also, you seem to be confused as to what "wikimarkup" means. It's any markup th MediWiki software will parse. This includes MW's own wiki markup language, MW's parser functions, XHTML, CSS, etc. The distinction you seem to be drawing between XHTML and "wikimarkup" does not exist.
3. What errors in parsing? What "self"? Infliction of what? Definition length has nothing to do with how markup is parsed. Inconsistent markup is a problem that arises with all markup systems on all sorts sites, not glossaries on en.wiki in particular. "Crux, questions, possible solution and the way forward, attempted in a top to bottom approach.." isn't a sentence. Crux of what? Questions about what to whom? Possibly solution by whom to what problem? What is attempted by whom to do what? Top and bottom of what?

The ten:

1. Sure. Is there somewhere this a big problem?
2. I don't know what you mean by "lead section" here. Every article, including glossary articles, has one "lead section" in WP terms, so "each lead section and definition can stand alone" doesn't make sense here (and is mixing singular and plural in an odd way). What do you mean by "self referencing"? If you mean WP:SELFREF, that's already covered. If you mean that WP is not a WP:RS for itself, we already know that; nothing to do here. If you mean do not link between entries in the same glossary, you'll never get consensus for such an idea, because linking from one bit of information to another is most of what WP does, and the only possible way to keep a glossary concise is to not re-re-re-explain terms every time they come up, but to cross-reference them.
3. There is no principle on WP that ToCs have to be "consistent"; we have various ToC templates that produce very, very different-looking ToCs for a reason - some are better for some purposes than others. The draft glossary guidelines already give examples in this regard that should be good for most glossary cases. A ToC "that promotes best practice"? What does that even mean? Tables of content list the contents of an article. It's isn't their purpose to "promote" "practices" of any kind.
4. That isn't wikimarkup. I don't know what sort of pseudocode it is. I recognize some bits of template syntax in there, but some of it seems to be jibberish. Anyway, we can't have one markup style for single-sentence definitions and a different one for others; that will never, ever be practical, since any given edit, by any editor at any time, may change a definition's length.
5. Whether multiple definitions are needed in a particular case is a content decision at that specific glossary, and is outside the scope of the MOS, including WP:GLOSSARIES. Also, "making use instead of tags to split the terms" could mean any of about 5 different things. We are in fact using XHTML "tags" (elements) to split the terms, into separate definitions when necessary.
6. I think you meant XHTML here, but the answer's the same: MW supports XHTML code for a reason, and we use it for what it is best for, especially within templates (i.e. such as the structured glossary templates).
7. What problem are you trying to address here? This is actually another article-level content decision; in some cases it may be more helpful to the reader to link to a glossary entry, one narrowly tailored to the nuances of that term's applications in the topic field the glossary covers, and from that definition also have a {{main}} that links to the separate article. This is actually pretty frequently precisely how it's done, and MOS cannot make content decisions like that; it's up to editors at that article.
8. Um, no. There is no basis in any policy or guideline or conventional practice here to remove images from glossary entries, any more than from any other type of article or section of an article. One of the main things that makes an encyclopedic glossary encyclopedic instead of a list of dicdefs is illustration.
9. Huh?
10. Well, yes, that's what WP:GLOSSARIES is the working draft of.

You continued with another, shorter list of what you saw as action items, inside a paragraph:

1. "I believe I could write up a TOC best practice section relatively quickly." To articulate what? Maybe if you just do this somewhere and present it at WT:GLOSSARIES, it'll be clearer what you're getting at. This kind of comes back to the theme that a problem must be articulated and evidenced before people will agree it's a problem and how to fix it.
2. "If you could provide a parsing error that corrupts wiki mark up, where the above conditions are met, so that I can start working on a solution." I have no idea what you're talking about. That's the first half an if-then sentence, with no "then" part. Why would I want to try to break things with errors? Again, what actual, demonstrable, extant problem are you trying to address? See WP:BEANS; it's not our job to try to create problems to solve.
3. "Can we start some new categories to track and monitor performance and issues effectively." Categories of what? Performance of what? What issues? Categories are for sorting articles and other pages here by topic; not sure how that will help "track and monitor" anything relevant to glossaries. Glossaries are just articles, formatted a particular way. In theory we could get approval for another hidden category type for some sort of WP-internal purpose, but again you're not articulating any kind of actual issue or need here.

Next you replied to me with four more numbered points (hint: lists of numbered things are only helpful when there's one of them; if there's three or four of them, it just confuses things more).

1. That's just technically incorrect, and doesn't reflect anything about WP standard practice. You're also under the mistaken impression that formatting based on templates that use XHTML is somehow a bad thing because some wikis won't have the templates. The solution to this "problem" is course to create the corresponding templates on the other wiki that wants to borrow our content. The far more important re-use case is re-presentation of WP content in other completely different ways, e.g. on paper, on non-MediaWiki-based websites, etc., and the use of standard XHTML is a major boon to such reuse.
2. Sarcastic snarking isn't helpful. Very little discussion has happened, actually, because the work on this has been very esoteric for the most part, I was largely gone for almost a year, and most importantly, the structured glossary stuff already works fantastically well, as demonstrated by Glossary of cue sports terms. Other glossaries have been adopting this structure, without any serious problems (other than recent sloppy changes to the code in Template:Glossary link, etc., that I'll try to fix this week. At any rate, it's simply being quietly implemented with no one seeming to have any issues with it other than you.
3. You don't have, and I firmly predict you'll never find, consensus on any aspect of that point of yours. Again, content decisions, like whether a glossary link should go to a term in that glossary or to a main page elsewhere, is outside the scope of MOS, including WP:GLOSSARIES.
4. I've already addressed that. See WP:COMPETENCE, and remember that no one is forcing anyone to use any markup here. For all we care someone with (sourced) content to add can just add it sloppily with no markup at all. We'll try to educate them on how to make better contributions, but their contribution won't be rejected.

You wrote, "All my clear points above stand true for glossaries", but your points are not at all clear to me and I doubt they'll be clear to anyone else. I'm not trying to be mean, but I decline to be put on the defensive by your forcefully toe-stepping approach, overlaid with what sound like insinuations of WP:OWNership, when you show up on my talk page with a laundry list of problems that do not seem to be real problems, and talking about some kind of comprehensive overhaul of the glossary code and draft glossary guideline, for which you not only cannot articulate rationales but have not even clearly articulated the details of what changes you're proposing. All indications are that you have some beef with XHTML, which you do not understand, and have an intent to strip this code out of WP:GLOSSARIES and its associated template. You're on notice that you do not have consensus to do that, and that pursuing that course of actions would be very severely disruptive to the off-wiki portability of our glossaries, as well as their internal maintainability. As I said before, proposing any of this stuff on my talk page isn't normal procedure, anyway; this is not the correct venue. Not sure what else to tell you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BracketBot message 2 April 2014

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HTML element 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) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 April

Resolved

 – Fixed by someone else before I could get to it.

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

• On the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Date series header

Resolved

 – Responded at that TfD.

Template:Date series header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sig

Hi, SMcC, I just got myself extracted from that new font bug, and what a headache that was. They seem to have got it so I can now read my screen, but now I can't read your sig. I could always read it before. Screenshot: [9] Did you do something new to it? —Neotarf (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I turned it into a cat instead of a guy's head. You're using a font that is missing some Unicode characters. I guess I should look at my sig on some other devices and see if this is common (i.e., see if it affects everyone but Mac users, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  07:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Since all the font gurus are now assembled at village pump, I have asked there; perhaps there is an easy answer. —Neotarf (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The left whiskers "⚞" ( THREE LINES CONVERGING RIGHT U+296E ) don't show up for me either, though "⚲" ( NEUTER U+26B2 ) does as part of the apple symbols font. Have you considered using >̶ and <̶ for the whiskers? Normal > and < with combining long stroke overlay ( U+0336 ). PaleAqua (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The NEUTER problem was that I was using a combining character under it that looked like a ")" turned 90 deg. clockwise, i.e. a smile, but in some fonts it was show up next to the NEUTER symbol "nose", instead of under it. I suspect a similar problem might occur with using U+0336 to overlay the angle brackets, so I used some similar character that already have three strokes, but seem more common. I forget what they are, maybe Japanese characters of some kind. See other face experiments (not just cats) at User:SMcCandlish/sandbox4. PS: My Mac Firefox default font is Arial, and it's rare for me to encounter Unicode that won't display. I don't seem to be overriding that in personal CSS here, either, so I think it really is Arial being awesome.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: Yeah, in the Trebuchet MS font I impose on my own talk page, the overlaid angle brackets look like >- and <- respectively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, better with the parenthesis, I think, and maybe even the larger ears. But your old image always used to crack me up, I seem to remember spectacles. ——Neotarf (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had lots of different ones. I was always fond the red-eyed Terminator. How about this kitteh? ≽(^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ)≼ or this one? ≽(^Ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^Ʌ)≼ Or this one? ≽^Ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^Ʌ≼ I bet a lot of them on that sandbox page of mine don't work in your font. I was pulling characters from deep in the guts of Unicode, and doing multiple overlay tricks with some of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the kittehs on that page I can't see with my browser. Your current one is good though, as are the ones above. —Neotarf (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel your pain.

Resolved

 – Underlying dispute with Ring Cinema no longer exists, and I have no interest in looking further into that editor's history, but thanks anyway.

User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_3#As_a_practical_matter_... and User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_4#Good_faith_is_as_good_faith_does. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I don't have anything against Ring Cinema in particular. I find the editor's reliance on avoidance of logical argument to be troubling, in as much as it affects articles or policypages and debates about them. Everyone has their quirks, and if Ring Cinema wants to engage in arguments that cannot rationally go anywhere because of all the red herrings and handwaving and subject changes and refusals to respond to the actual issued raised on that editor's own talk page (and now mine; see below), that's not a big deal to me. When that behavior starts turning into revertwarring, it's an actual problem to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  02:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your bad habit is picking fights when you're wrong

Resolved

 – Underlying dispute no longer exists.

I guess you don't know that change requires consensus. If you don't know that, it seems like you shouldn't be editing the Consensus policy page. Bad form! When you're reverted, even on something small, take it to discussion. That's the process and procedure. Thanks for all your good edits! --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to review WP:BOLD which is policy you're blatantly ignoring, then skim WP:CONSENSUS again, which is policy you cite incorrectly (note in particular that a single strident reverter who doesn't provide actual reasons for resistance does not somehow indicate a lack of consensus or a genuine controversy), and actually read WP:BRD, which is not a policy and which you clearly misinterpret in ways that lead you to think it's a magic bullet against BOLD edits you don't like. In particular, you cannot use BRD to revert changes just because you vaguely disagree with them or don't like the editor; you have to provide reasons based in WP:POLICY or (in mainspace) on reliable sources. Instead of complaining here, address the edit rationales on that talk page. You demanded "discussion", so you have to engage in it when it's opened in response to your revert-warring, or you're simply being disruptive, not actually using the BRD process (which is not mandatory anyway). PS: Your heading here doesn't even make sense in the context; nothing you said here has anything to do with factual or philosophical correctness on the issues raised at the discussion (the discussion you demanded and then ignored). Given the obtuse avoidance of rational argument all through your talk page archives, and your block log for disruptive editwarring, this is not much of a surprise to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  02:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This Ring Cinema self-revert resolves the issue for me, other than editorial behaivor stuff I've raised at that editor's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Alleged nonsense

I'm honest and accurate. I recommend it for everyone. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sam Stern

Hello

I ask here to you this, because you contributed on Stern talk page. I'm contributor on french wiki. I found info on Sam Stern. Look at this. Sam Stern has been hired by Bally Manufacturing in 1969. but i don't know the date he stpped. more, reading seeburg and stern page, Sam Stern should be executive CEO untill 1979 at williams Manufacturing Company ? / create Stern Electronics in 1977 ? / and become seeburg president since 1980 ? !

I can't find anymore info, my native language is french, and it's pretty difficult to go further in research.

PS : i also Added a message on SNK page without answer of anyone! Best regards.--Archimëa (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not just cite these sources at the articles in question? Neither are articles that I edit much. I know very little about pinball and arcade games. I'm mostly a structural cleanup and grammar correction editor on such articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  02:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. already cited this, i was looking for help and more informations about stern.

OK i understand, i will try with another contributor --Archimëa (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding the nature of your request.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

hmmm, i was looking for help to find what's happening to this man after that. I was looking fo someone who could update sam stern page/stern elctronics page/Williams electronics games page/ Bally manufacturing page. Certainly, i'm not native english speaking, and perhaps an native americain can have idea to find, or where and how to find more informations. But there is no problem. --Archimëa (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at guidelines, and stuff

All this arguing is wearing me a bit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removing_current_consensus_from_guidelines. Let's see if we can agree on some general principles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: So why start another argument? Heading to WP:VPP when you get reverted but have not really engaged in the "D" part of WP:BRD to actually explain why you want the edit you're insisting on, much less addressed others' responses to your rationale, seems like WP:PARENT behavior, regardless what the intent was really.

I hope the discussion that's actually happening at the NC page in question addresses your issues, at least for now. I sympathize with them more than you might expect, but now is not the time to raise them more stridently, I would suggest. There's way, way too much chaos between the organisms provisions in 5 different guidelines. AFTER that's normalized, then it might make sense to approach the breeds question, but attempting to do so now is going to result in a "@#$% no, no more weird capitalization demands" response from the community, I guarantee. The "issue fatigue" on this is very high. I'm taking the brunt of all the concentrated ill will in this entire topic area, by being the flame-retardant guy pushing for the normalization and keeping at it until it gets done. You don't want any of that heat, I assure you. PS: Don't worry about it if some breed articles get de-capitalized; almost all breed articles are capitalized, so it would take an LOT of work to undo all of that. Even if it happened, that not seriously affect the consensus decision (it might even get someone in trouble for WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior). And some of those "breed" articles need to be decapitalized (and I've been doing it myself, e.g. at St. John's water dog, because they're not formal breeds but landraces (e.g. general types or sorts of animals, per WP:MOSLIFE). I'm being careful to leave capitalization of real breeds alone, because the jury hasn't even been convened yet on that capitalization issue. The arguments for caps there are different and stronger than for species common names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

T:FAUNA listed at Redirects for discussion

Resolved

 – !Voted to nuke it.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:FAUNA. Since you had some involvement with the T:FAUNA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom sanction

Thanks for the reference to WP:ARBATC. I notice mention there at WP:ARBATC#Individual sanctions of one against you. Is it current? Andrewa (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You do the math: If a one-month restriction beginning on 12 March 2013 is imposed, does it extend to 10 April 2014? The very fact that you asked the question you did, as if avoiding considering how your own behavior is going to look if reviewed at WP:AE in light of ARBTC, doesn't bode well for keeping your own name off that page. I have to say that you are not "doing your homework". You had no idea about ARBATC, despite MOS, AT and various other relevant pages all bearing large warnings at the top of their talk pages about ARBATC sanctions. You had no idea about the two month consensus discussion (dominated by WP:BIRDS editors trying and completely failing to gain consensus to capitalize bird common names) in early 2012, leading to our current very stable MOS:LIFE language, and declared that you couldn't find any previous attempt at "non-local consensus". You are aware that MOS has talk page archives, right? And that they're searchable? I know I've already apprised you of the detailed log at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names, which links to all of this stuff with notes. You are a very late-comer to the discussion. If I were a common-names-capitalizer, I would be quite angry with you because you've (seemingly unintentionally) done more to steer that line of reasoning toward a point-of-no-return consensus failure than anyone in the last 2 years. You might wonder why I'm not singing your praises, then. I don't agree with your "ignore everything I can't address" tactics, WP:CIVILPOV behaviors, sport argument for its own sake, pretense of understanding a debate you haven't researched at all, and other troubling editing patterns. I got in some ARBATC trouble a year ago for being a WP:DICK in style debates. Learn from my pillorying or you'll find yourself in the same stocks soon enough. Tolerance of ad hominem arguments at MOS/AT has gone down not up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK... There are two sanctions against you there, and you are referring to the second of them, on 12 March 2013, which has of course expired as you say. I'm referring to the first, on 2 March 2013, [10] which doesn't mention any expiry date, or have I missed something? I think I made it clearer on my own talk page, when I responded to you there. [11] Andrewa (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Been doing more productive things than arguing with you. Oh, you mean the rather symbolic "restriction" that I have to obey the same WP:AGF policy as you and everyone else? Sure. I'm going to guess you posted something on your page suggesting that I cannot raise concerns with your editing behavior or you'll run to WP:AE about it. See WP:BOOMERANG and unclean hands before even contemplating something that WP:POINTY. You'll get sanctioned yourself rapidly. (If you file an AE request that is not absolutely ironclad demonstrating a presently ongoing pattern of seriously disruptive transgressions, you get boomerang blocked for being a jackass, basically. BT;DT! I filed a case and was boomerang sanctioned simply because the evidence wasn't fresh enough. AE is nothing like WP:ANI at all.) Sorry to disappoint you that you are not magically immune to criticism. The March 2 case means simply that I'm a bit more likely than average to be punished if, in a MOS/AT debate, I patently transgress WP:AGF, e.g by accusing someone without evidence of having motives antithetical to the project, or making personal attacks like calling them stupid. The thing is, everyone participating in MOS and AT debates is on a short leash, because of the discretionary sanctions. I believe they're actually antithetical to the well-being of the project when applied to non-content discussions like MOS, so I tend to remind people who exhibit hot-headed behavior at MOS. I've seen four editors sanctioned at once for a single thread. It has a chilling effect on our ability to hash issues out, the more so the more people get blocked for it. If I were the whine to AE type, probably 5 editors involved in the discussions the last few days could have been sanctioned, but I'm not interested in pursuing WP:LAWYER antics. The discretionary sanctions stuff was implemented to rein in the most intractable wars on Wikipedia, like the Israel vs. Palestine editwarring and other mostly ethnic and religious disputes, and has been broadening ever since, to include various pseudo-science topics and other hotbeds of dispute. The entire thing's being overhauled at WP:AC/DSR. Some of us don't think overhauled enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please respect the sanction

I think you are repeatedly violating the current sanction. Please refrain from questioning my motives, as in argument for its own sake, pretense of understanding a debate you haven't researched at all above.

I'd also strongly advise you to keep your replies succinct and to the point. As well as questioning my motives, the above attacks me in ways that are simply over the top. I've been doing a great deal of research... including reading the arbcom decision of course, but that was a while ago and I had not realised that you had been specifically sanctioned, or if I did I'd forgotten. Andrewa (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to this, observing that an argument is an action not a motive, etc., and then I had a system crash and lost the reply. Instead of rewriting that response, I will, since noticing your more recent comments at WT:MOS in response to Tony1, just take you at your word that you'd like to see a reduction in conflict, to "lighten up", and that you honestly acknowledged there that some of your own contributions were not seen as helpful. By the time our discussion got to where it was the last time you posted here, my issues with what I saw as your editing behavior at WT:MOS weren't actually ongoing any longer; it was already day-old news, and seem moot now. I, in turn, will acknowledge that you feel that I've been questioning your motives, and that you object to it. (I don't need to agree that I've being doing so, to agree that reasonable people could disagree on the matter, and that pissing you off isn't constructive if the discussion can happen without that side-effect.) I decline to get into a discussion of whether I'm "to the point" enough for you, as that is not a policy matter.

If we continue henceforth to stop stepping on each others' toes, that'll probably be the end of it. Maybe we'll even be good collaborators (Noetica and I were for a long time, and e-met each other through a personal conflict very similar to this one). If we do come into conflict again, I think we should try to resolve the matter with discussion. It's seemed to work okay so far.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of this, but none of it seems relevant. I want a constructive relationship too.

Do you really believe that the quote I gave above conforms to the sanction?

If not, then stop it. If that simple request is treading on your toes, then I'm honestly sorry to do it, but you leave me no option. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Progress

Even though I've strenuously disagreed with the format and nature of that poll-like discussion you initiated over there, I do have to admit that the reliable sourcing round it resulted in has been productive. Well, not so much for the pro-capitalization argument, but which side is WP:WINNING isn't the point; an end to the dispute and having 5 guidelines finally stop contradicting each other is the point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I made the suggestion for the poll not knowing or much caring which way it would go, and not much caring, relatively speaking.

I do have an opinion, and I think it's soundly based. But being right isn't always enough as I'm sure you've found out too.

And I also think that the angst is doing much more damage than the capitalisation or otherwise possibly could. But to simply give in for that reason doesn't seem terribly satisfying or a good precedent. Problem.

If we can come up with a consensus on anything, I think that would be progress. It's that bad so far. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've said myself that this isn't really about style or capitalization, it's a political struggle over Wikipedia's self-governance, so yes, it's is going to be angsty. It comes down to whether you believe that specialists can dictate style, content, article formatting, categorization, titles, tagging, sourcing rules, and other aspects of creating the encyclopedia, with regard to articles and topic areas generally that they consider within their scope. It's ultimately a question of whether WP:OWN is really a policy or an abandoned principle from the early 2000s that we're only paying lip-service to. Some editors clearly lean toward the position that groups of specialist editors must have unique-yet-collective rights/privileges in certain topics. This udnercurrent has always been there, despite a policy that begins: "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." Some wikiprojects seem to act this way (well, rather, their most vocal "natural leader" members do, while most ignore this crap as wiki-political noise of no interest to them, and go back about editing articles, rolling their eyes). But the actual anti-WP:OWN views here are a vanishingly tiny minority. The problem is that these messages are loud and tenacious ones, and they rapidly attract new "recruits" because they seem to promise increased power, authority and "rights", like some form of topical adminship without the scrutiny of WP:RFA.

But it actually is also a legitimate style matter, and the reliable sources as well as common sense fall solidly on the side of lower case. Virtually no one uses upper case for common names of species but specialized guidebooks and journals. And we have a really clear policy about that, too, even titled to specifically address both classes of usage! WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. There is no tenable position for capitalizing this stuff here, not without changing several different policies, radically.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sort of... but we don't need to join them, we can beat them. Have you had a look at my WP:creed?

You're discussing two separate issues above... the capitalisation one and the governance one. You say it isn't really about capitalisation, and I'd agree in a way, so far as the antiC camp is concerned, that's exactly right.

But so far as the proC camp is concerned it is just about style. They don't seem to want any of this. Have I just missed it? One of the staunchest and most articulate of them said they'd respect the outcome of a poll, and that was after the poll had already shown an antiC trend. I'm afraid I see no hope of the antiC stalwarts making such concessions.

There are arguments both ways, and either way will do perfectly well. Wikipedia is about content, content and content (as is the WWW). See User:Andrewa/the Andrew tests and User:Andrewa/Andrew's Principle.

Frankly, the underlying motivation for non-capitalisation does seem to mostly be that's what I was taught in school. Then there are arguments from Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but these are quickly abandoned once it's pointed out that they can cut both ways, or we fall back into local consensus claims which are just the most common case of this and go much the same way but with more twists and turns. Then there are arguments from other style guides, but Wikipedia is unique. My opinion is that none of these arguments would be advanced at all if it weren't that the proponents have been taught a restrictive and obsolete grammatical rule in primary school and can't rise above that to ask what will best serve the reader?

And we have claims by the antiCs of misbehaviour by the proCs (including me) at many levels, but all the misbehaviour I have seen so far is by the antiCs. To (allegedly) conspire to disobey a guideline is not quite misbehavious, although it falls close to the line (and could certainly cross it if some tactics are used - but I haven't seen them). There are remedies which should be followed. They don't include counter-misbehaviour!

Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're looking at the evidence piling up in User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names very carefully (and it's expanded rapidly just today alone). It is absolutely not just about style to the pro-caps camp; for them it is about One True Way, a "universal" "official" "standard" that is not any of the above in reality. See the material I quoted from them yesterday, about absolutely refusing to quit because they see it as a professional ethical mission to never, ever give up on this. Fortunately only a handful of people at the birds project actually feel that way, and several of them have already quit (perhaps because they weren't here for the right reasons). The rest of them just want to write bird articles and really don't care about the style question. There's a real reason that only about a dozen or fewer bird editors ever speak up about this; the rest don't care, and they certainly don't care to turn it into a wiki-political WP:BATTLEGROUND.

The arguments about policy and guidelines are not quickly abandoned at all! They're consistently advanced by those with a pro-MOS position, and simply ignored by those with a specialist style fallacy to maintain. There is no policy-based pro-caps argument to make at all. WP:IDHT is not an argument, it's a stalling strategy, and it's all that the pro-caps argument has. Even the reliable sources argument is overwhelmingly against them. I have no idea what which are just the most common case of this and go much the same way but with more twists and turns is referring to. The arguments from other style guides all say "do not capitalize these things". Even the world's most prestigious science journals do not capitalize species names even in ornithology articles. The WP:BIRDS claims that ornithological style is unique are nonsense; herpetology journals also mostly capitalize, but we do not pick up their habit here. The reason that this has kinda been done on WP with regard to birds is nothing but force of personality in one self-selecting group. There is no other difference at all. I recently posted a challenge to the idea that the IOC list was somehow qualitatively different, somehow "more special", more authoritative, whatever, than the name lists in other fields like herpetology, and cited them, and said show me what the difference is. Result? Dead silence.

All the pro-lower-case camp ever ask is "what will best serve the reader?", and it certainly is not a geeky, ungrammatical convention that (aside from the fact that it's not even completely accepted in the field from which it's being inappropriately misapplied to an encyclopedia) confuses readers and requires specialist knowledge to understand much less write correctly. Again, using lower case like MOS says requires no specialist knowledge of any kind at all. That's the end of it right there. I would bet real money on this being the outcome of any real consensus discussion, and probably more on that particular basis than any other. All other concerns aside, it isn't practical, as 9 solid years of "stop doing this, we all hate it" objections prove. That wikiproject cannot keep pretending indefinitely that it has Wikipedia consensus to do what it's doing. It doesn't even really have WP:BIRDS consensus, it just has "the 10 people at WP:BIRDS who will not let this die" false consensus.

I have no idea what "counter-misbehaviour" you might be referring to. Answering nonsensical, biased arguments with clear logic and clear policy citations is mostly what the pro-MOS editors have been doing, as well as proving that real-world sources overwhelmingly prefer lower case. I'm not sure what you mean by "hang in there". I'm not on the edge of anything, expressing any doubts, or feeling any pressure. For the first time in my entire long tenure here, a resolution to this capitalize-or-I-quit nonsense is finally right in front of us, and we're clearly headed toward it on the basis of common sense, sources and policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be right about being close to a resolution, one way or another, and hope you are. But I'm afraid that I think that long posts such as the above, largely repeating things you know I've already read and answered, are counterproductive. They just make it more difficult for me to answer any new points you make. That is obviously unsatisfying for me, and for anyone else who meets similar posts, and this just drives us further from true consensus.

I'm fascinated to know how the capitalisation confuses readers and requires specialist knowledge to understand much less write correctly. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I repeat that the second-to-last refuge of someone whose argument can no longer be sustained is to suggest that they just can't be bothered to respond to the opposition. It's just a sour-grapes concession.

Anyway, "I'm fascinated to know how" you possibly could have missed the fact that the IOC conventions require specialist knowledge to write correctly, despite how many times it's been covered (by many, not just me) over the years this has been going on, especially when I recently cited the Handbook of the Birds of the World criticizing the IOC's particular capitalization scheme, unless you simply have not been reading anything from any side of this issue other than watch catches your eye for a few second. Did you even read the quite short WP:BIRDS#NAMING review of the complicated rules? They require exact knowledge of the scientific classification of the species or subspecies in question and its relation to others in order to get it right for any given bird if a hyphen is involved, and so on. That's why anotehr bird taxomonic authority rejected the IOC's system as too complicated to be useful. Oh, two of them did, actually; forgetful me. Are the facts of the debate simply not of interest to you? Has only the debate as a thing unto itself, like a reality show, caught your attention?

It's highly unlikely that that straw poll mess will result in any kind of consensus at all, though it clearly hints which direction it will eventually go (since, gosh, it's already gone that way again and again, every time the debate comes up in a bigger venue than WT:BIRDS). I'm happy to see a 3-to-1 majority in favor of lower case, which is about what I predicted (I think it will be closer to 4-to-1 soon enough), but I expect that WP:BIRDS will reject it as not-really-a-consensus, because it's an impenetrable thicket of sub-sub-sections, littered with link-farms to bogus ngram searches, people voting in the wrong section and editwarring about people moving their !votes to the right section, and blah blah blah. It would be an insult to the community to list that thing at RFC or CENT. It needs to be started over, from a draft RFC that both sides buy into the wording of, and with a rule at the top against inserting comments into the !vote sections between people's posts, only commenting in a comment section, and enforce this by refactoring regularly. We can put sourcing on separate pages.

Or the status quo can just continue. More people, who do not regularly edit MOS, are going to file RMs to move bird articles, more people are going to remove LOCALCONSENSUS gunk from guideline pages, and the weird-capitalization wall will just come apart, brick by brick, as it's been steadily doing since 2008. I'd be happier with a "clean" RFC, but whatever. Even Casliber says the lower-case side of this debate "has the numbers". We clearly and more importantly have the sources and the reasoning; the birders have nothing but a tradition of sorts that they like a lot and want us to like, to no avail.

In the interim, I'm working on some ideas to provide a compromise I think people can all live with after tempers cool (despite my anti-fanclub's beliefs, I actually want all sides to be okay with what we end up doing). I am not interested in squabbling with you further in public. If you feel we need to argue about something, you can e-mail me directly (or we can Skype or whatever); this medium is too slow and formal. If we each had a better idea where the other party was coming from and why, I think our interaction might go more smoothly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that this justifies the claim that the capitalisation confuses readers and requires specialist knowledge to understand much less write correctly (italics changed a little for clarity, the first two words are mine of course). I think that, once more, this approach misunderstands how language works. A reader, whether specialist or not, can interpret the phrase Black Crowned Crane just as easily and accurately as black crowned crane.

There are valid arguments both in favour of and against capitalisation. These long, overstated and personalised posts do not help to sort them out, in my opinion. They are counterproductive.

I am not interested in squabbling either, so please stop the personal attacks, on both me and the birders. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: I did look at your creed page. They seem like nice ideals. Difficult to live up to. Quite a few of your posts don't seem to make the cut from my perspective. That's more a criticism of the bar you've set than whether you've met it, perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. See the second clause at User:Andrewa/creed#civil, and also of course 1 John 1:8. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Resolved

 – Both fixed.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Domestic long-haired cat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pet rescue

Domestic short-haired cat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pet rescue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

English species names, proper names and capitalization

I've generally tried to avoid commenting in any detail on the argument that the English names of species should be capitalized because they are proper names, because it's a complex area of linguistics (which I'm used to teaching to undergraduates, so find difficult to discuss at the right level on a talk page). If you're interested, I've updated my thoughts at User:Peter coxhead/English species names as proper names. I don't think that English grammar supports either view, and particularly not that bird names should be capitalized in English. If you find the essay at all useful, feel free to commend it to bird capitalization enthusiasts! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think ultimately this conclusion is the key; even if species names are somehow proper names, it doesn't mean we should capitalize them for that reason. Considering how many high-quality sources don't capitalize, any suggestion to capitalize (or not) based on grammatical correctness would be wildly prescriptivist. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good start, but I raised some issues with its oversimplifications. The core argument makes sense to me, though I think the birds difference you're seeing is incidental. I like that there's one more argument against the notion that common names of species are proper names. If we capitalized them, we might as well capitalize all nouns. Kind of like Group, eh?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've improved (I think) the essay in response to both your comments – for which thanks. It still needs a bit more work near the end. ErikHaugen: I agree that to capitalize based on the argument that English species names are proper names is dubious at best, wrong at worst. (Only "at worst", because of the lack of philosophical clarity over the semantics issue, which does allow a tiny loophole to argue that some uses of English species names are proper names.) However, as SMcCandlish well knows, the "slippery slope" argument is always a bad one: it doesn't remotely follow that if we capitalize species names we might as well capitalize all nouns. One of the reasons for capitalizing species names is the same as that for capitalizing "White House": it's a way of making a distinction that is made in speech through stress and intonation but is otherwise lost in writing. The alternative is to write in a careful way which ensures that the lost information doesn't mislead. If the name "blue jay" might be confused with the description "blue jay", we can either capitalize the first but not the second (which I prefer, and which I think is simpler for most people) or (as SMcCandlish has regularly pointed out and clearly prefers) we can re-write the sentence so the ambiguity doesn't arise.

(The other argument for capitalization in some circumstances is quite different and let's not take it up again here; it's a reluctance to go along with the MOS's regularly expressed view that styling in sources can be freely over-ridden.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll extend the olive branch

	I'll extend the olive branch
	I don't seek to be adversarial and I meant no offense. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks! This should be a template. I'd probably use it pretty often! {{Olive branch}} was a redlink, though. For my part, I didn't mean to go on at that much length at the retention page. I didn't see what a screenful+ it was until after the fact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) On a second read I was also unnecessarily intemperate. Sorry about that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I templated it at {{Olive branch}} and credited you in edit summary. Have already used it at User talk:Peter coxhead. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the tribute in template! I hadn't watchlisted your talk page before and I just stopped by on a lark. I'll make a point to be a talk page stalker of yours in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is an existing template at {{Olive Branch}}. PaleAqua (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well, the new one's better.  :-) 'Snot my fault the old one wasn't mentioned in the wikilove navbox. <shrug>  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Both are nice. But might make sense to move one the new one to {{Olive branch 2}}, and the old one to {{Olive branch}} leaving the redirect or vice versa. PaleAqua (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlb

Resolved

 – Responded to at the WP:TFD entries.

Template:Tlxb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redirect actually. DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxb

Template:Tlb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rediredct actually. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxi

Notifying myself for the record, in case I need to search for it later.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.

Resolved

 – Done.

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 16, 2014. Please send me an email at jmatthews@wikimedia.org if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hamburger Schule 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:

• ' tradition, are [[Spillsbury]], [[Kettcar]], [[Erdmöbel]], [[Kajak (band)|Kajak]], [Justin Balk]], {{sic|hide=y|[[Virginia Jetzt!]]}}, [[Astra Kid]], [[Modus Noa]], [[Marr (Band)|Marr]] and '[[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird common name capitalisation

Resolved

 – Done.

I've made a suggestion at the afc that I now close it--could you look, and say if you agree? DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: I was impressed by your positions on wikicultural issues and your rationales for them on your user page, and your admin actions I looked over seemed neutral and focused on what was right for WP based on its own rules, not extraneous impositions of how it "should" be. I hope you have a thick asbestos suit. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Updating of Wikipedia guidelines and essays

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Adminship?

I see contradictory like/would never like to be an admin userboxes on your userpage. (I'm thinking of applying myself, but don't want to self-induce skitzophrenia.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ha ha. I'd meant to remove the "would like" one. Now that they've spun off the template editor bit, the only thing I'd ever want admin ability for is moving over redirects, and only for cleanup purposes. Going to RM for trivial moves, or tagging such redirects with SD templates and twidding one's thumbs until an admin notices and fixes it, is an annoying time waste. For my part, I have zero interest in blocking people, protecting pages from editing, handing out dire warnings, digging into dirt in deleted edits, or any other administrative power trips. I only ever wanted adminship for efficiency reasons. Personally, I think it should be automatic after 1 year + 10,000 edits + clean block log. WP's culture would change for the better overnight if everyone who could be trusted to edit constructively here was actually trusted to edit constructively here. The increasing "sekret brotherhood" aspect of adminship, and the extreme difficulty of passing RFA have done more to drive people away from WP than any other factor other than perhaps the complexity of the rules and procedures. WP is like a MMORPG that takes months to learn how to play without being kicked off the server.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea about the automatic "pass go, collect $200" idea. We could apply, get the gun & holster, and have a mentor assigned who'd ride shotgun. As I've commented on the possibilities with others about applying, I hear more & more about the rigors. – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything you've done or said that can possibly be spun in a negative way will be, and if you've made any kind of "enemy" and they notice your RfA, they may canvass off-Wikipedia through e-mail to get people to show up and vote against you, and may even get sockpuppets to manufacture disputes and lie about them. I'd rather eat my own feet than put up with that crap again (I've been through it twice). I'm content in my role as a logic-minded curmudgeon who gets stuff done. It's probably a shame for some backlogged process like editprotected requests that I didn't make admin, since my patience for doing stuff like that is near limitless, but c'est la vie. Some other even more obsessive-compulsive geek will show up eventually willing to do that stuff, I guess. Heh. Anyway, good luck with your pursuit, and I hope you'll be one of the good ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Clean block log", heh. That's always the litmus test, isn't it, no matter the quality of the blocks. But at least you seem to have found a uniquely useful role. —Neotarf (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Emerson

Moved to User talk:Chuunen Baka § Emerson

 – No need to fork this discussion to two talk pages.

Thank you for taking the time to be such a patronising arse. It might leave you with a nice smug feeling but it really doesn't contribute much to the debate in question. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tlg module

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Redundant sentence?

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 than 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[12], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

code vs. tt

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 May

Resolved

 – 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:

• On the Red-tailed hawk page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Other uses-section

Resolved

 – Good deletion candidate; no objection from me.

A tag has been placed on Template:Other uses-section requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Steel1943 (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I recently performed some edits on Template:About that integrated the functionality of Template:Other uses-section, including converting all transclusions of Template:Other uses-section to Template:About (while using a new section parameter I had added.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I was going to challenge the speedy, but now see what you've been doing and it makes sense. For future ref, it would probably be good to include a note like that along with the speedy notice, since it only takes seconds to remove a speedy deletion template.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized ... basically immediately ... that it would probably be VERY HELPFUL if I explained what I did to improve Template:About. Steel1943 (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

SSME title change

Resolved

 – Commented over there.

For various reasons this move poll is being redone, and I'm notifying anyone that voted or commented since then. Please could you !vote again at Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Requested_move2? Many thanks.GliderMaven (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I added some ngram data.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for comment; but I wasn't aware this editor was on a topic ban?, does that explain the sudden flurry of pointy RM activity yesterday/today? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

He'd recently been on a very curious, year-long limited topic ban, which ended in Feb., wherein he was "sort of" banned from style-related RM and similar discussions, where it was left to admin discretion whether his participation in any particular RM was "too pointy" or not. Weirdest ANI result I've ever seen.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Violation on article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Native_chicken

please reply on Talk:Philippine Native chicken page

thank you. Fowl vet (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Fowl_vet

Please comment on Talk:Jodie Foster

Disregard

 – Declined: I don't know enough about the issue under discussion.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jodie Foster. 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, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral language at WP:AN/RFC

Please remove the non-neutral language you posted at WP:AN/RFC. Asking delay because discussions are still active is fine for me, stating that the discussion contains errors is however not a neutral way to formulate that question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. I didn't "formulate a question" there; I requested that the closure request be disregarded because the issue is still under discussion and a one-sided FAQ was making it seem more resolved than it was. That's a neutral statement; it does not argue in favor of the proposal/issue one way or the other (in fact I'm in favor of some version of the proposal; I'm not in favor of the discussion being shut down by an admin from AN/RFC. Actually, I revised it anyway, because the FAQ problems aren't really relevant any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SMcCandlish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:10, 7 May 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding an article

If I have an article to write and add -- RADtrek: a published and minimally used mountain bike trail route through Colorado's high country along the Continental Divide. How would I go about including it in Wikipedia? Note my website and the information provided therein: RADtrek.com. Thanx, Gjjmtnus (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Gjjmtnus

@Gjjmtnus: First, see WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory; this is not the place for something like a Yellow Pages entry or a profile/review of a company or its services (including a private trail). Companies and services can be notable enough for an article here (e.g. Apple Computer, Disneyland), but that's entirely dependent upon coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. In particular, see WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (web).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My position on diacritics

Hi, please don't assume I'm somehow "anti-diacritics". I don't want to make these personal points on the AT talk page, but I spent many years teaching computational linguistics and being frustrated by the commonly used US-origin textbooks that assumed that their version of English was English as a whole, and which almost entirely ignored other languages. I also served on an ISO subcommittee on transliteration/transcription standards. I'm all for the maximum clarity and lack of ambiguity in representing languages in writing. However, I'm also aware from WP discussions in other places of a substantial number of editors who are very hostile to what they seem to see as a threat to the "Englishness" of the English Wikipedia. There have been some very nasty threads discussing how to disambiguate Chinese names, for example. I think we need a carefully worked-out, reasoned set of principles which don't lean too far either way. It's not at all clear to me what a widely advertised, full scale RfC would result in; I fear that it would lead to decisions neither of us would be happy with. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted! As for the an RfC, don't you think we'll need one eventually, so the issue doesn't just keep coming up (just keep being manufactured by the same people, mostly), indefinitely? Seems to me the question is how to frame the RfC so it's likely to arrive at the carefully worked-out reasoned result. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello - I was stopping by on the issue of diacritics, and saw that User:Peter coxhead had already opened a thread, so rather than start a new one.... First off, I think a well-framed RfC is a critical, long-overdue step here; as I noted on the now very messy WT:AT page, WP has never had a site-wide comprehensive discussion on diacritics, which I think has led in part to the ongoing simmering situation that occasionally boils over in mutual rants like the current one at AT. If either of the two of you would like to start working on one, count me in - I'd love to help. It may not be able to survive the shouting and hyperbole from some corners, but as they say in España, vale la pena. Dohn joe (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do think a full RfC is a good idea and is needed. That's one of the reasons why, although somewhat pro-diacritics myself, I think the arguments need to be carefully tested to see how they fly. As I've tried to indicate, I think that there's a spectrum of "modified Roman alphabets" – modified by the addition of diacritics and/or the use of additional modified letters. Although it can only be a somewhat fuzzy line, we will need to draw a line somewhere, and then be clear that the slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Uses to one side of the "line" will then ok as titles (and hence of course in running text); uses to the other will not. There's also the slightly different issue of the use of diacritics/modified Roman alphabets in the transcription/transliteration of other alphabets. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur and concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Diacritics: for the birds?

On a separate note, SMC (so much for no new threads...), I'm having some trouble reconciling your positions on bird orthography and diacritics. Maybe it's because I don't understand fully where you're coming from, but it seems to me that you spoke at great length about following usual English-language practice and eschewing specialist usage on bird species. Don't those same principles likely point to less, not more, usage of diacritics on en.wp? Dohn joe (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's important that we don't re-start old arguments but I too have great difficulty in understanding why the "specialist style fallacy" doesn't apply to diacritics, and the argument that it does is certainly going to be used by "anti-diacritics" editors (of whom there are many in my experience elsewhere). In particular consider this bit: "The Wikipedia community supports specialist publications' stylistic recommendations when they do not conflict with widespread general usage, grammar and other expectations. We side with general, not specialist, practice when there is a conflict, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia with the most general audience in the entire world, and is not a specialist publication or collection of specialist publications." It will be said, with lots of supporting sources, that "widespread general usage" and "expectations" are not to have (too many) diacritics. Style manuals like Chicago that provide advice for both generalist and specialist publications can be cited either way. SMcCandlish needs to sharpen his arguments on this one! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: for example, you've just rubbished Blueboar's reference to the NYT style guide in the diacritics discussion, but you've used such style guides in the species name capitalization debate (e.g. they are listed at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#External sources on species – note this is just an example, I can point out other places where you've used the non-use of capitals in such sources as evidence). They are not "knock-down" examples, I agree, but the styles adopted by quality newspapers and magazines are relevant to style debates, and you have rightly used them as part of your arguments in the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What specialist sources, though? No one has made any argument that depends upon a specialist source for diacritics, and there is no camp of specialists pushing for them; it's misc. editors of all sorts. The two issues are not really comparable in any way other than being English language styles issues in the broadest sense. Speaking a language isn't an occupational, academic or avocation specialization, it's just something people do, either because of their upbringing, the later socialization, or because they took some classes. Capitalizing bird names doesn't involve changing fonts or using character picker applications or weird keyboard shortcuts, or anything else that's a speed impediment (i.e., costs money and delays publication). Far more people have a "WTF?" reaction to "the American Crow" and other capitalized common names of species than they do to diacritics in Spanish, Vietnamese, whatever, names, unless maybe they live in a tiny, technology-free, all-white Amish community or something. Actually, even then, they'd be perfectly familiar with German diacritics. Meanwhile nearly no one but birders, and British gardeners, and butterfly collectors capitalize common names of species. Journalistic sources like NYT disprove the idea that no reliable publications fail to capitalize birds; I don't recall making a claim that they demonstrated anything else, and there are very close to zero such publications that do capitalize that way. The far more important examples were peer-reviewed biology and general science journals like Nature and Science, even some actual ornithology journals, also not doing it, and general-audience works like dictionaries and encyclopedias not, either. NYT and other news sources often not using diacritics in personal and place names doesn't prove or disprove anything other than that some such sources don't bother with diacritics, a fact no one has challenged, and for which various non-mutually-exclusive reasons are pretty obvious and have been discussed at length.

The diacritics thing isn't a "specialist vs. general sources" debate at all. The only things that could be called specialist sources for, say, Vietnamese diacritics would be linguistics journal articles on the language, and Vietnamese-as-a-second-language manuals, but no one is citing them in this debate; they're not relevant, because they reflect a particularized register of writing that isn't encyclopedic. I'm sure it incidentally also uses the diacritics, but that's not important to the "what should WP do and why?" discussion. The bird capitalization was originally done in field guides and picked up later by IOC, etc. The birds wikiproject people who were boosters for capitalization inverted that relationship, and claimed that the capitalization in field guides was proof of IOC style's wide acceptance, a blatant falsehood. An organized WP:FACTION were pushing a convention they imported to Wikipedia from an external organization, falsifying its history and its level of real-world acceptance, and falsely promoting their WP:PROJPAGE as a formal WP guideline.

Nothing like this is happening with diacritics. There is no International Diacritics Union, no WikiProject Diacritics acting as an advocacy club for it, no fait accompli to revertwar diacritics into every article title that could plausibly have them, etc., etc. It's simply that Wikipedians of all sorts are increasingly accustomed to diacritics here because Unicode makes them much easier, and they matter enough to enough people that they get done (usually correctly) in more articles, so as a matter of day-to-day practice, WP is (in RMs and elsewhere) increasingly moving toward broad tolerance of diacritics, despite the fact that journalistic sources still tend to elide them (especially the more right-wing they are and less likely so the larger and more diverse and urban their audience). Higher quality publications use diacritics more and more. WP is reflecting what people see in the real-world every time they drive down the street or look in the Yellow Pages, or whatever. I cannot remember any time in the last 15 years that I've seen a Vietnamese restaurant offering "pho" rather than phở (and not just in San Francisco and Toronto, but even in Albuquerque).

The diacritics debate is much closer to the hyphens vs. en-dashes debate, in which journalistic and lower-quality sources (corporate logos and brochures, government documents, etc.), and sources that are high-quality but ignore style rules (other than their own) with impunity, like so many academic journals, do everything with hyphens because they're right there on the keyboard and it's expedient. But higher quality, carefully edited sources like big-publisher non-fiction understand the difference, and are more likely to use dashes properly. Note that there is no "expert/specialist sources engaging in fallacious attempts to impose a style that doesn't make sense here" issue in either case. Even if you hate diacritics and hate dashes, there's no club of academics (or, far worse, obsessive hobbyists) trying to stuff either of them down your throat based on what some academic organization demands. The similarity between the dashes and diacritics cases doesn't go terribly deep, though, since dashes are closer to a "pure style" issue, while diacritics are both style and more importantly content. [Before anyone has a cow about me referring to obsessive hobbyists, I'm saying that as an obsessive hobbyist, just one who's learned not to obsess about my hobbies on WP. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think several editors now have raised the issue of sources which are aimed at specialists versus generalists: at least User:Peter coxhead and User:Whatamidoing. And you can add me to the list. From my review, it seems that it is a fairly typical question that sources with a general audience explicitly address. Many authors and publications seem to recognize that unfamiliar diacritics can interfere with the delivery of content:

* “recognizing that nonspecialists may find the diacritics difficult to manage, I have omitted them from terms that are familiar to an English-speaking audience. Widely known toponyms (for example, Vietnam, Hanoi, Haiphong, Hue, Saigon, and so forth) appear without diacritical marks, as do proper names such as Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Vo Nguyen Giap.”

* “To simplify matters this book will use common English spellings for large cities like Warsaw, Lodz, and Krakow. Lwow will remain Lwow while Wilno will be called Vilna. Smaller cities will receive proper Polish spellings with diacritics.”

* “Because this text is global in scope, I have kept the transliterations and transcriptions as simple as possible. In general, I have retained diacritics only if they are essential to indicate the correct pronunciation of an unfamiliar term or if a diacritic appears in the common English rendition of a word (as in Baha'i or Brother André). I would have included all relevant diacritics if this work were a specialized treatise on, for example, Tibetan Buddhism. I assume, however, that most readers of this actual work would not find such diacritics useful and that specialists on Tibetan Buddhism will recognize relevant terms even without diacritics.”

As a global, generalist source, I think that WP should at least consider accessibility issues without being accused of "dumbing down" the encyclopedia. Drawing lines that maximize the overall reader experience is important, wouldn't you agree? Dohn joe (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is long again, but not to drown anyone out. These quotes just raise multiple questions that need to be looked at separately. To clarify, I"m not suggesting that no one has mentioned more specialist sources; rather, no one is advocating inclusion of diacritics on the basis that the specialist sources do so, that they're better sources on style questions relating to the topic of the specialty, and "therefore" WP must do so as well, which is what the WP:Specialist style fallacy is. No one's citing Vietnamese linguistic works as evidence for what WP should do. The arguments made in favor of diacritics here are not that argument.

It doesn't strike me as terrifically interesting that three cases can be dug up where someone is intentionally dropping diacritics for reasons they believe are reader-friendly; no one has denied that this is sometimes done. The question is "why, in the age of Unicode and globalism, would Wikipedia do this, too?" Taking your quotes in order: The first is one writer/editor's approach, and something closely related to that rationale has been a common one at WP, too, for a long time (it's related to why Pho has that article title instead of the one with diacritics, and I expect anti-diacritics WP:COMMONNAME arguments to continue to require excessive anglicization on a lot of article titles for years to come). But our practice, and our reliance upon this idea, is clearly shifting, mostly because there's no actual proof that article titles (or running text) with the diacritics does actually have any negative effect at all (other than drawing out ranty "This is the fucking English Wikipedia!!!" psycho behavior from a usual suspect or two). It turns out they don't actually interfere with delivery of content into brains. They used to interfere with generation of content, the supply side of delivery, but even that's not really true any more (especially here - if you can't just copy-paste the Unicode stuff, you can simply ignore it and someone else will add the marks later).

The second quote indicates the same rather haphazard "maybe, maybe not" use of diacritics we've been struggling with. "Lwow will remain Lwow while Wilno will be called Vilna", but why? What line is being drawn other than an arbitrary one in the writer's head? There's no clear principle at work there, much less one that we could codify, less still in a way that wouldn't be controversial and liable to be perceived as blatantly racist.

The third is making the "it aids pronunciation" argument that was strawman-dogpiled at WT:AT two days ago; no one here is actually positing that unfamiliar diacritics help people ignorant of their meaning to pronounce anything. That's not why we use them. We use them because they're factually correct according to reliable sources that bother to address the question. (Similarly, we don't drop the h in Lhasa apso just because it doesn't tell anything useful to most English speakers.) A secondary reason is that they do actually mean something useful to readers not ignorant of the language in question; this varies by language (more English speakers are familiar with Spanish and French than with Vietnamese or Irish), but so what? This is the sort of thing that requires a consistent general rule, or it will never be accepted. Diacritics incidentally also signal to unfamiliar readers that the pronunciation might be complicated and worth a look if they're interested, but that's tertiary concern at best, and not even worth trying to drum up an argument against.

With regard to diacritics, the COMMONNAME case is frequently overstated, or given too much weight even when not overstated. If a name isn't genuinely common in English, as it is not for most Vietnamese notable figures and placenames, there really is no common name in English at all, and an argument for no diacritics on the basis of what English sources have been doing is bogus, even aside from pre-Unicode ones, for the publication speed and cost reasons that have already been covered. For cases like Ho Chi Minh where there really is common name in English, we have to ask why leave the diacritics off, with no result other than it being inconsistent with treatment of other Vietnamese names? More broadly, would Wikipedia leave the acute accent off of Jules Grévy just because lots of English-language periodicals and books did?

Another problem with the third quote, when applied generally, is it boils down to "assume ... that ... specialists ... will recognize relevant terms even without diacritics", but WP is not written for specialists, and even if it were, that assumption is often false (depending upon the language[s] and context) because diacritics very frequently determine the distinction between one word/name and another within a language or between languages (the Irish surname Moran and the Spanish one Morán are not variants of the same name, or even cognates).

Next, what accessibility issue? "I hate them damn' squiggly marks" isn't an accessibility issue. Severe visual impairment is, but screen readers ignore diacritics anyway, mostly if not entirely, though future ones will surely be aided by diacritics, to actually alter the pronunciation to be more accurate based on their presence. (Maybe this is already happening; I haven't looked in years, other than to note that JAWS still does an enormous number of boneheaded things that must make the Web a very confusing and monotonous place for the blind.)

I'm not trying to be contrary just for sport argument. All the cases against diacritics seem very weak to me. It's actually a somewhat inverted SSF; the specialist literature here, in a sense, is the sort of material being quoted above, forming an editorial specialization of "protecting" reader eyes from diacritics. Socio-psychologically, it's almost identical to the case for rather than against the capitalization of common names of species: It's the idea that reading anything even slightly complicated is just too hard, and that we have to do something typographical to keep people from running away, like capitalize to make vernaculars stand out, or strip out unfamiliar marks (that the reader's Vietnamese or French or whatever neighbor actually finds useful and which are provably part of the real name of the subject). Our readers generally are not feebleminded or borderline-illiterate. And they're not bitching about diacritics. Only a handful of activistic editors are.

I may be a little biased in the sense that I grew up in different places, many of them multicultural and metropolitan, so I'm more used to diacritics than someone who has only lived in rural Idaho or the Cotswolds might be. I don't think we can write for such an audience in particular, and have to err on the side of being factually correct, not reflexively anglicizing out of overly dramatic concerns about what our readers can handle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points; it's certainly not a "common name" issue per se. However, I'm not as sure as you seem to be whether the quantity of diacritics used in writing Vietnamese or Maltese are a problem for readers. They're not a problem for you; mostly they're not a problem for me. But we aren't typical. I know that significant numbers of editors (mostly IP editors) do regularly "bitch" about scientific names (along the lines of "write in English not Latin", "I don't know how to pronounce these so why are they here?"), so I'd be very surprised if some aren't unhappy about major uses of diacritics. My concern remains as to whether editors writing articles about Malta or Vietnam have reached a local consensus based on a style that is primarily specialist (yes, I read your arguments above, but you've allowed your history over species name capitalization to affect your logic, just as I've probably allowed my history of resisting endless attempts to move plant articles to so-called "English names" to affect my logic).

The only question we should be asking is "Is this style acceptable to the wider community for use on a routine basis?" I don't know the answer, but we should find out. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that's the most important question. Unfortunately I think it will raise other ones, and will be extremely controversial for reasons I've already hinted at if some preponderance of "ick, I don't like diacritics" people outvote more tolerant responses, and the result is used to suppress diacritics for a handful of languages. Incidentally but not necessarily coincidentally those are mostly going to be Asian ones, a variation of Arabic in the case of Maltese, and very likely a number of languages that have little in common other than that their speakers have been historically subjected to British (or other European) colonialism and exploitation. I think it would open a can of worms to draw some arbitrary line between European languages like Polish, and other not-European ones like Vietnamese, Mohawk, Tłįchǫ Yatiì (Dogrib), etc.

As for local consensus, I would probably agree except that it's not just Vietnamese. Upon closer examination, we don't have here a situation in which Turkish, Polish, French, Irish, Spanish, etc., names and terms are not using diacritics, but some die-hard camp of Vietnamese POV pushers is trying to force them on everyone, for Vietnamese and Vietnamese alone. This situation isn't a typical "wikiproject rebellion" case, in open revolt to carve out an exception to a WP norm they don't like. Rather, we have organically evolved to a post-Unicode WP norm of permissiveness with regard to diacritics, but others are trying to carve Vietnamese and a few other languages out of that inclusive realm. It's the exact opposite of the "bird caps" kind of case (or, so as not to pick on that camp in particular, the "capitalize government job titles", "don't hyphenate medical compound adjectives", "italicize climbing trails", etc., types of cases, where some insular camp wants special treatment).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Since people keep wanting to bring up journalistic sources and what they do, here's the New York Times being candid about how frankly pretty racist their approach is (in the third of three segments; just search for "Vietnamese" to skip to it). "The Times stylebook entry speaks quite directly to [the reader's] question, but in a way that is very unlikely to satisfy [that reader] or those who feel as he does."

Quoting the NYT's style guide:

Accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. For simplicity, use the marks uniformly with uppercase and lowercase letters, despite conventions that treat certain uppercase accents as optional. Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example), which are less familiar to most American writers, editors and readers; such marks would be prone to error.

After that quote, it quotes the stuyle guide's editor saying "We feel that it’s not practical to use these marks in less familiar languages. It’s likely to be confusing to most readers and would lead to many more errors and misspellings. It’s hard enough for us to get French words right." These rationales can be lampooned as "our readers are stupid" and "our editors are stupid". Neither of these apply here. Editors who care about diacritics on WP are very apt to get them right, and when they don't they'll be corrected soon enough. And the readers who do complain about diacritics are probably of the same class and frequency as those who vent about scientific names in plant articles. They're people looking to complain about something, but who did not really have any trouble reading the article. If anything, the plant people have a more reasonable case, since Quercus alba in place of "white oak" actually is more unfamiliar and confusing than Hồ Chí Minh for "Ho Chi Minh". If the various rationales for using scientific names for plants are considered to have won out over WP:COMMONNAME and all other concerns (there are several others), the case for properly using Hồ Chí Minh and avoiding a shit-storm of Eurocentric racism accusations seems like a no-brainer.  :-) PS: Note that WP's own diacritics acceptance level is already far beyond NYT's. Their "we allow the marks for this very short list of languages because of their alleged familiarity" [to whom? New Yorkers?] reason is already out of the picture here. We really are contemplating drawing a line that only excludes a minority of languages just for being diacritics-heavier than others.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that you can sensibly call it "racist"; there's no "race" issue involved. It's simply a fact that it's reasonable to assume that many educated readers of the NYT have some familiarity with some major European languages, just as it would once have been assumed that educated readers could cope with Latin, if not Greek. (Mind you, as one who has travelled to Ottawa via Newark, NJ, and found that at least one member of staff there wasn't sure if Ottawa was in the US or not, I'm not inclined to assume much!) As you know, I'm all in favour of respecting the expertise of WikiProjects, but ultimately there has to be community acceptance and this requires a MOS-level RfC. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I know there's no race; I'm simply predicting leftist American arguments. Living a stone's throw from San Francisco and Berkeley, and a short walk from Fruitvale Station, I'm surrounded by these sorts of arguments daily. We don't have a word "ethnicist", so everything that smacks of The White Man doing or saying anything that can be spun as critical or restrictive of anyone else is lumped into the "racism" category and attacked as such. Whether it's reasonable to do so rarely figures into it.

Agreed it needs an RfC, but how to have one without it being an ill-informed popularity contest is unclear. Most people with an opinion to share are going to have no linguistic background, nor even a background in general English writing above the collegiate paper-writing level, if even that.

In the interests of exploring the issue not "trying to win", I've been looking for devil's advocate arguments against Vietnamese here, and the pickings are poor. One is that tone marks aren't really diacritics, but something different. It's a hard sell, and it would also be a rationale for getting rid of eth, thorn, okina and other things that aren't really diacritics (in those three cases, they're actually full characters, but whatever). For Tłı̨chǫ language, it's a mixture: The nasal marker is a diacritic as we usually mean (a mark indicating a sound change to a regular letter of the language's alphabet), but several of the marked up characters are actually alphabet letters, and the under-letter marker is tone indicator. The case for excluding tone marks would leave Tłı̨chǫ/Dogrib partially marked-up. Next, I figured that tone marks are not useful in written language, but it turns out they actually make for a meaningful distinction between words; the NYT link gave a specific case of a well-known Vietnamese surname being mistaken for the word for 'manure', in writing, without the marks. I can't find any evidence that the marks are optional recentism; they really are the way the language is written, and it's not some upper-class affectation (the way diacritics in French and Spanish originated). I'm running out of arguments to look at. Maybe an RfC will surprise me with some new ones?

PS: My point about NYC was that depending where you live there and one's own background, one might actually be way more likely to have familiarity with Vietnamese than French, Spanish or Italian. I've lived near military bases several times, and there's always (in the US) a significant Vietnamese presence near them, and thus increased familiarity with how that language works, even if it's just "yes, it uses diacritics, and I know the soup is pronounced "fuh" not "foh". That's even in mostly-rural places like Curry County, New Mexico, where Spanish is also pretty familiar, but not French or Italian. The point being that the NYT's aggregate assumptions about the readers they're selling to and writing for, can't be generalized to Wikipedians.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Re "race" – ah, right, I misunderstood what you were saying. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm refactoring the rest of your comment into a new one at a non-arbitrary break.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Disregard

 – I'm the one who opened that one.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

Cite4Wiki development

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malakia

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Malakia. 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, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane

Resolved

 – Done.

Hey SMcCandlish, thanks for applying for Cochrane access. Could you please fill out this form so I can process your request? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done! Thanks. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comfort women

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comfort women. 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, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Other uses-section

Template:Other uses-section has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Even though you did not oppose the speedy tag I put on the template, an administrator denied the speedy, so I must now take the TFD venue. Rationale shall be explained at the nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tlxi

Resolved

 – Fixed

What do you mean by "it doesn't currently behave sanely when no parameters are given"? Looks fine to me: "Some text {{tlxi|example}} Some text" → "Some text {{example}} Some text". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The use of the template in that case has no effect at all that isn't provided by some other template. I copy-pasted that imprecise wording from another template's /doc; will clarify both of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun control

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. 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, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members

Disregard

 – Declined. I don't know/care enough about that to meaningfully participate.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members. 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, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You might like to comment

Resolved

 – Done.

...at WT:MOS#Clarify MOS:LQ#LQ where some editors seem to think that LQ is different for different ENGVARs. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Vulgar Slang

Resolved

 – Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Vulgar Slang. 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) 01:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on winning your years long war on editors who had the temerity to do things differently to they way you would. No doubt the triumph of making everything the way it should be will be worth the bad blood caused by your campaign. At any rate, it was nice coming back from a long wikibreak to see that the whole matter had been resolved and that the bird people had been put firmly in their place. Your hostility and contempt towards WP:BIRD in the RfC, and your magnanimity in victory and self portrayal as the victim of the piece on their message board was a nice touch, a reminder of the quality human interactions I've so missed being away from here. Hopefully now that you've managed to kill this particular White Whale (and you certainly seemed almost religious in your fever to kill capitalisation in the RfC) you'll find some peace. There's clearly nothing left for me to do here now that this problem has been fixed, so I'll go back to having nothing to do with this place.

Seriously though, thanks for reminding me why I've come to hate this place. I look forward to coming back when people remember we're supposed to be writing... Oh, who am I kidding? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Barking up the wrong tree, or more like scapegoating. I was gone for nearly a year. Other people, not even MOS "regulars", took this matter repeatedly to RM, etc., and swayed opinions. Upon my return, I chimed in of course, but the debate was already long re-started (the mass RM was not only already over by the time I came back, but already at WP:MR). Admins closing that RM and related discussions leaned in favor of lower case (not by their preferences but on the strengths of the arguments). WP:BIRDS people wanted to have an RFC about this; I thought it wouldn't actually go well or resolve anything. An editor I have more than one disagreement with started that proposal/RfC process and "managed" it, over my own objections (note that I had a entire subsection pointing out why the RfC/proposal was not a good idea). Attempts to launch a concurrent second RfC happened, again over my objections (which this time had an effect); meanwhile the original proceeded vociferously, and was clearly in favor of the capitalization you prefer, not just by the numbers, but by the reasoning and the evidence. I and everyone else who cared on either side presented arguments, counterarguments, evidence and refutations of evidence. An admin in favor of capitalization personally closed the RfC as in favor of lower case, in one of the most detailed and carefully reasoned RfC closures I've ever seen (which nonetheless didn't even address the two strongest reasons for lower case – if the closure were to be procedurally challenged, it could theoretically be overturned on some technicality without actually changing the outcome, because a re-examination that included those missing considerations would conclude even more strongly in favor of lower case).

I'm not going to be angry with you for blaming me; I have a thick skin, and I'm already used to being all but demonized by other members of the birds wikiproject.

Bad blood? That existed for 4 or 5 years before I ever even touched the issue; this debate has been going on since at least 2004, and I first even commented on it in 2008. A review of the terrible mess created by activist capitalizers from that project pushing bird conventions in other areas like mammals is a (negative) wonder to behold, that we're still cleaning up after. Even until early-mid 2013, almost all rodent and primate were capitalized throughout like that, and well into 2014, many ungulate articles were still riddled with capitalization of species common names, all traceable to a handful of WP:BIRDS editors and a few entomologist "allies" aggressively pushing the idea, article after article, project after project, for years. See archives of Talk:Cougar for how intellectually questionable that endeavor became.

Sorry to see you feel like leaving again. I left for a long (unrelated) spell, too. I don't know the nature and extent of your other grievances with WP and its process/community that make you feel this way, but I won't insult you by pretending to suppose that you left and are leaving again over some style matter. Despite my disagreements with her, I never made that claim about KvdL, either; she, too, had strong objections to WP more generally, and wanted to start a bird wiki separately. I think that's actually a very good idea. There are numerous wikis out there for broader-and-more-specialized-than-WP coverage of all sorts of subjects.

PS: I don't know what "self portrayal as the victim of the piece" refers to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:The_Transhumanist#Indexes (eom)

Resolved

 – Responded to over there.

Thx.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. 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, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Romeo and Juliet

Disregard

 – Decline; this isn't a community discussion, it's just a WP:RS question.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romeo and Juliet. 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) 00:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Norwegian Forest cat 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:

• Norwegian Forest Cat|reason=like almost all articles in this and other animal breed categories (the animal type is just a disambiguator, not a proper name}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Small Greek Domestic Dog 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:

• While there are sources (mostly NOT cited here) for the existence of the large historical breed (the Meliteo Kinidio or Kokoni, nothing but an unreliable dog blog site suggests that this smaller

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Basque mountain horse may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:

• {{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Resolved

 – Fixed.

The request for a page move for:

• Gotland pony
• Guinea hog

appear to be self-referential

For

• Tonkinese cat

the source page does not exist

Other than that, nice cleanup work, thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the tags. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Gotland Pony has moved to Gotland pony and Guinea Hog went to Guinea hog. The remaining one is Tonkinese (cat) to Tonkinese cat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What the H--- are you doing?

You just fouled up several dozen horse articles by moving them against consensus. Some breeds have the word "Horse" in their proper name (others don't) and these names were sorted out on a case by case basis - Please restore ALL your moves back to where they were and address each article individually; you just screwed up a longstanding titling consensus on several articles by doing this. Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at a few recent moves and don't see a problem. I don't think reverting all recent moves is something that SMC should be doing at this point; can you be more specific, perhaps an example? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

NB RM here: Talk:American_Paint_horse#Requested_moves. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I was bound to make a few errors (or alleged errors) in the course of this ongoing cleanup across the various animal breed categories. No need for anger (like last time...). When we were collaborating on this several years ago, I seem to recall the consensus being that "Botswanan Five-legged horse" is how this should be done (not "Botswanan Five-legged (horse)" nor "Botswanan Five-legged Horse"). This is how virtually all breed articles were already done, and this is now even more true; there are very few stragglers, which I've just been cleaning up. I'm not sure which particular moves you're objecting to; if you can, feel free to revert them (if the redirs have been edited for proper "r from" templates, you might not be able to, though). I'm just doing what WP:AT calls for in disambiguation and what WP:MOS calls for in capitalization (or, rather, avoiding it). It's probably time this stopped being an occasionally tense discussion between you and me every couple of years, Montanabw, and instead was just a WP:RM discussion or a WP:RFC more broadly about how to handle these article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: Please also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation – attempts at "WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes" to make up wikiproject-level rules (surprisingly commonly about animals) that conflict with MOS, AT and other site-wide policies and guidelines has not been successful and has caused a lot of problems and strife.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bird names are for species, not breeds. As for horses, I'm discussing about 12 or 15 exception to a general rule. Some of your moves were OK and are not under discussion.You really know better than to do this stuff without asking first. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, there's been nearly zero progress in over four years on cleaning up the domestic animal article titles mess. WP:BOLD action on this scale usually raises a concern or two, but the community sorts it out. The community is whom to ask, not you or the equine project (that wikiprojects don't get to make up their own style rules is the important things about the birds decision; what classification level it was about, like species vs. breed, is irrelevant). Maybe "American Quarter Horse" needs to be a conventional exception, but most of those don't; they're no different from Siamese cat or Valencia orange – there's no reason to capitalize the organism type after the breed name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that there are active editors on the horse articles, and there is a significant difference between species and breeds. Seriously, some of your moves, you may note, I didn't put into the RM request; If American Quarter Horse is an exception, there CAN be others, and I have about 12 that I think qualify. A majority of the breed articles already use natural disambiguation. We have a few that don't, and common courtesy would be to ping the talk page or do a RM Before making sweeping, unilateral moves that could not be undone without administrator intervention and a dramafest. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not generating any drama. The RM you started doesn't seem dramatic either (other than in the phrasing of the nomination, a little). It's just a discussion. They're just article names. No one will die. I don't see any difference between your examples and, e.g., Siamese cat or Kuril Islands Bobtail cat (if that much of a disambiguated were actually needed). There is no reason to capitalize the horse/cat/whatever after the breed names. I'm not even convinced "American Quarter horse" shouldn't be written like that (or as "American Quarterhorse", or "American Quarter-horse"), to the extent we're going to continue capitalizing breed names at all except where proper names occur (i.e., we may well go the way of "German shepherd dog" not "German Shepherd dog" much less "German Shepherd Dog"; I've been on the fence about this for years, but a lot of people are not and are unhappy with the jargonistic capitalization; their concerns can be minimized a bit if we consistently stop capitalizing the organism type after the breed name). There is no difference between species and breeds when it comes to what WP should do with regard to them, on the basis of what policies, guidelines, reasoning, sources, etc. There isn't even a scientific difference between them; they're entirely arbitrary names, usually geographical, for genetically distinguishable populations. In horticultural botany, the breed-level designations (which vary - there's form, cultivar, grex, etc., depending on the exact genetics involved) are part of the scientific name, and it's just academic accident and breeder/fancier politics that this isn't also true of domestic animal breed names). Just let the RM run. We don't need to individually go over our personal take on the matter again and again. I know you think these things should be capitalized and that the community will agree. I think the opposite. Let's just see. PS: There are active editors on all sorts of articles; that doesn't mean that anyone's permission has to be sought. The very problem that groups of editors, most often a wikiproject but sometimes on particular articles, can get very OWNy and want to do things are particular way that triggers WP:SSF concerns and conflicts with what other editors are doing, is often a good reason to just be BOLD – it triggers a reaction that usually leads to a broader discussion than just trying to convince an entrenched camp to change their collective mind. Finally, I'm cleaning up a mess that covers many hundreds of articles as disparate as cattle and chickens and guinea pigs; if I've netted a handful of horse articles that end up being moved back, that's a small price to pay for the expediency engendered by just fixing things without trying to get people to have discussions and come to agreements on a case-by-case basis, which could take another decade if done that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not discussing species names, there IS a difference. Breeds are human creations, though they are still animals and living beings. Do you advocate for "volkswagenpassat" or "honda civic"? Even my dictionary capitalizes Quarter Horse. It isn't what wikipedia wants, it's calling things what they are properly called; if you want to dig in on 12 horse breed names, you certainly will, but really, isn't this one stick to just drop? Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a difference between what species and breeds are, not how they're named. No one's making an argument about whether species have had their breeding guided the way breeds have; this is about why WP should prefer some names and not others; the names are comparably isolated. The Eastern newt did not pop up one day and say "Hi, my name is the Eastern newt". It's an fictitious human label for a span of organisms that seem to us to be genetically and phenotypically similar enough to for our purposes to stick the same label on them (just like a breed). For WP purposes, there is no difference between a species label and a breed label. PS: What dictionary capitalizes Quarter Horse? Just curious. As I'm sure you're aware, most non-specialist (in this context, non-horse-focused) publications do not capitalize the names of any animal breeds except where they contain geographical or other proper names. If you want to object to compounding, start with American Saddlebred, American Warmblood, Friesian Sporthorse (and note that's not consistent with Brazilian Sport Horse), NorthAmerican Sportpony (WTF?), etc. Finally, I'm not "digging in" on anything; I've expressed an opinion at RM and moved on. E.g. the entire Category:Goat breeds is now cleaned up, and I think Category:Cat breeds only has one hold out pending a {{db-move}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

New Oxford American, the one that came with my computer. I theoretically agree with you about the NorthAmerican Sportpony WTF, but given that it IS a real breed registration organization, it's a good example of calling things what those who create them want. FWIW, there is also Friesian Sporthorse and Friesian Sport Horse (And while I don't GAF, those who care almost started an edit war over it several years ago. All words are a fictitious human label, and English is a language that has so many other languages influencing it, no wonder we can't decide between German or Latin capitalization, hell we can't even agree on US/UK spelling! Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The logic at WP:SSF applies to animal breed names as much as to anything else. Again, I'm not trying to have an argument with you, Montanabw; we work well together when we're agreeing, and the disputes of this particular sort seem more a community matter to settle. Honestly I think it needs to be a larger RfC than that one multi-horse move, because that one mostly only attracts horse editors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of cat breeds, can you glance at Tonkinese cat? The page to be moved is a red link. I know I botched something, but I thought I cleaned it up. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New self-reference

Resolved

 – Fixed.

• Akbash dog--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed; it's Akbash Dog.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog

You are right, but I notice you preferred the term "landrace" at times and "variety" in others. While both are better than "breed", isn't the former more standard for animals and the latter for plants? Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Variety has a specific meaning in horticulture, but not otherwise; I was using it in the generic sense, to avoid repetition, but have no actual objection to using landrace consistently (and landrace is also used for plants, in botany more broadly; horticultural and botanical terms aren't quite the same all the time).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Parmigiano-Reggiano

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Parmigiano-Reggiano. 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, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old English Game fowl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bantam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Content edits

I don't object to wikignoming, and your cleanup that is consistent with the horse breed titles status quo is helpful (I never realized we had missed Byelorussian Harness horses), but please resist the urge to do content edits unless you discuss the issue. In particular, the landrace/breed/landrace breed issue is complicated in horses and there is a project consensus on the matter; (and no MOS rulings that I know of) so WikiProject Equine is the place to raise if that consensus should be reexamined, with a lot of thought and references to the highest quality peer-reviewed studies. Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You're reverting me doing typographical fixes. This is WP:STALKING and it has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are disrupting wikipedia to make a POINT. I have all 400 -some horse breed and type articles on my watchlist, and I am watching wiki constantly today because of the Belmont, so your disruptive edits are popping up on my watchlist constantly. Why don't you go work on all the other animals until tomorrow? We can discuss then. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see also, such as waste of time and sad loss, over what? House Sparrow vs. House sparrow. I can't believe it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So, if I threaten to quit over some style matter does that make you a bad editor for not letting me have my way? Don't blame me for other people's temper tantrums or needs for breaks, and especially not for the results of a bird capitalization dispute launched by someone else at RM, and by someone else again – a fan of the capitalization – at WT:MOS, where another fan of the capitalization closed the discussion against the capitalization, based on the actual merits of the arguments, sources and relevant policy. See above a week or so ago; I've already been over this with the very party who says he's leaving and who came here to blame me, too, not having actually paid any attention to who launched what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please also see "get a grip on reality" (there's no Wikipedia guideline or essay for this, but it's just a real life thing). This propensity to adhere to a bizarre "guideline" (note) which then devolves into edit warring etc is simply pathetic. Suggest you get back to doing something constructive, maybe focus on improving some of the Mosconi Cup articles for instance. You are capable of so much more than just moving pages for capitalisation wars... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I've actually been constructively working on a rewrite of Basque mountain horse, with reliable sources (like genetic studies and such, not crappy horse blogs). Maybe you all need to quit picking fights just to get into it with WP:MOS regulars because you hate MOS. Not everyone agrees with you personally and your camp on every style issue. So it goes. Stop editwarring about it, particularly in ways that just antagonize the editor you're disagreeing with and which have nothing to do with that dispute anyway. Who are you label my cleanup work unproductive? Is it only productive when you're doing it? Is no change good except when it's unopposed?

More importantly, I'm not the one making disruptive "points"; I'm the one being followed around and reflexively reverted by people who just insist on some status quo ante principle that does not exist on Wikipedia, as a matter of clear policy. I'm not being reverted on changing potentially controversial article titles (that's an RM discussion, and I haven't moved any controversial ones since that started). I'm being reverted on attempts to discuss that RM, on ensuring that the RM discloses the actual articles it is liable to affect, on correcting incorrect impositions of English capitalization rules on Spanish titles, on fact-tagging alleged facts with no sources, on correcting WP:OR novel synthesis, on getting article text to agree with its article title and with the rest of its own text, and on and on. Normal, everyday editing work. I'm going to take a break for a few hours at least (I own my own emotions and need to manage them instead of sticking around to bicker further just for bickering's sake), because you're antagonizing me so much with blanket reverts in a stalking pattern, and getting your cronies to come here and dump on me, that it's distracting me from the actual productive work I was doing, because I can't even write one sentence before I get yet another revert notice, or hostile user talk message, or a ranty but unsubstantive article talk page reply, mostly from the same guy. So, I'm simply going to stop doing the actual productive, constructive work you're demanding I do and that I was doing, because you and some other horse and bird people won't stop editwarring with me to make point. Good job.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)