User talk:SMcCandlish
Status: Busy 
 | Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
No RfAs or RfBs reported by Cyberbot I since 8:58 9/27/2024 (UTC)
| 9 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 22:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | Motion | (orig. case) | 30 September 2024 |
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 August 2024 |
| Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 September 2024 |
| Amendment request: PIA Canvassing | none | (orig. case) | 30 September 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
- Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.
Technical news
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
Most recent poster here: JatBD (talk)
Mini-toolbox:
- My Wikimedia Library (journal access, etc.; to get your own, see WP:LIBRARY)
- Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Script (req. WP:AWB access and JWB installed or is just a normal redlink)
- Special:LintErrors
- Hunt down abuse of
{{em}}for non-emphasis italics [1] — and<em>[2] - Move and redirect articles with slashes in their titles when feasible (i.e. when not proper names that require them)
- NAC-at-ANRFC geekery to remember
- NAC-at-RM geekery to remember
- Ref consistency checker (use in preview or sandbox):
{{ref info|Manx cat|style=float:right}} - All WP:CUE project participants should watchlist this alerts page.
Redirects for discussion
- 01 Sep 2024 – Eight-Ball (talk · edit · hist) →Eight-ball was RfDed by Thryduulf (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 25 Sep 2024 – Mink Nutcharut (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); start discussion
- 30 Aug 2024 – Thelma Carpenter (billiards player) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by BennyOnTheLoose (t · c); start discussion
- 08 Jun 2024 – 2024 World Snooker Championship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); start discussion
- 07 Jun 2024 – 2024 Tour Championship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lee Vilenski (t · c); start discussion
Other:
- MW Editing team e-meetings, /wikimedia.org/edit-tasktriage via Google Hangouts (Tuesdays, noon–12:30pm PDT = 20:00 UTC during DST, 19:00 otherwise, but often half an hour earlier).
- MW Tech Advice e-meetings, via IRC at #wikimedia-tech connect (Wednesdays, 1–2pm PDT = 16:00–17:00 UTC).
- meta:Talk:Spam blacklist – global blacklist requests
|
As of 2021-10-05 , SMcCandlish is Active. 
|
 |
User talk:SMcCandlish/IP
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Old stuff to resolve eventually
Cueless billiards
UnresolvedExtended 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)
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)
|
Some more notes on Crystalate
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[3]; info about making records:[4]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[5]; "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 - 1991wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:No5 Balls.html. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
|
UnresolvedExtended 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)
|
You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright
UnresolvedExtended 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)
|
Hee Haw
UnresolvedExtended 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)
|
Redundant sentence?
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
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)
|
Note to self on WP:WikiProject English language
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
Excellent mini-tutorial
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
|
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
You had previously asked that protection be lowered on WP:MEDMOS which was not done at that time. I have just unprotected the page and so if you have routine update edits to make you should now be able to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Ooh...potential WikiGnoming activity...
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
I stumbled upon Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects and there are ~100 pages whose pages have been moved, but the editnotices are still targeted to the redirect page. Seems like a great, and sort of fun, WikiGnoming activity for a template editor such as yourself. I'd do it, but I'm not a template editor. Not sure if that's really your thing, though. ;-) Cheers,
|
Note to self
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Don't forget to deal with: Template talk:Cquote#Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2020. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
Now this
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Not sure the ping went through, so noting here. Just spotted where a now-blocked user moved a bunch of animal breed articles back to parenthetical disambiguation from natural disambiguation. As they did it in October and I'm only catching it now, I only moved back two just in case there was some kind of consensus change. The equine ones are definitely against project consensus, the rest are not my wheelhouse but I'm glad to comment. Talk:Campine_chicken#Here_we_go_again. Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Current threads
Race and Intelligence - Fringe RfC
Hi, I've been getting myself up to speed with the RFC [9] (and the disputed close[10]) last year about a potential genetic component to the racial IQ gap. I saw your name in the discussion and have respected your contributions on other articles, so I was wondering if you have any input on the current situation, in which editors are citing the fringe consensus determination in defense of:
- Comparing the weak hereditarian hypothesis (that some genetic component may be involved) to pseudoscience like Bigfoot and creationism[11][12]
- Arguing there is no scientific rationale for a potential genetic component[13]
- Writing "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component", wording that is directly contradicted by the cited sources[14]
Editors are using the fringe determination to advance the argument that 100% of the racial IQ gap is due to environmental factors, and any dissent from this view is considered fringe, despite evidence to the contrary from a variety of reliable sources. Administrators at the ArbCom case back in 2010 proposed findings of fact affirming as much: "The (weak) hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe" and "The idea that genetics is one factor in racial IQ differences may not have achieved consensus in the scientific community, but neither is it fringe (and, in fact, no other factors have achieved consensus either—although some have been disproven)."[15]
I'm trying to to determine how best to proceed with this dispute, as the current situation strikes me as untenable and plainly wrong. I would rather avoid starting a new RfC and reigniting the whole debate again, if possible. Is there any better alternative? Stonkaments (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have been considering the idea of possibly starting a new RFC soon as well. If there is going to be a new RFC, I think it would be advantageous to wait until next month if possible, because there is some upcoming research that it would be useful to cite (nothing I’ve written, but I have given feedback to the authors). I’m also dreadfully short on time with work deadlines until April.
- In the meantime, if a consensus can form on the article's talk page to bring that part of the article into line with what its sources say, that would be valuable. The article has a special restriction against misrepresenting sources, so I agree it's a problem that the outcome of last year's RFC is making that restriction impossible to follow. If this problem can't be addressed on the article's talk page, I can try raising it in a RFC next month. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments and Ferahgo the Assassin: This is apt to get ugly. Keep in mind that even if it turns out to be scientifically defensible that there's a slight average statistical variance in intelligence level along ethno-racial lines, this is essentially a dangerous thing to say, because wingnuts will latch onto and exaggerate it as a reason for discriminatory (or worse) behavior. WP needs to be super-mega-ultra-certain of the solidity of any scientific consensus in favor of the idea, and figure out a way to write about it that is engineered, in every clause of every sentence, to thwart attempts at misinterpretation and over-generalization.
However, I don't presently think the idea is scientifically defensible, because there is no agreed-upon definition of what "intelligence" really means (which becomes especially clear if you read up on animal-intelligence research), and our means of measuring it are neither cross-comparable nor, when it comes to things that involve more complex skills (language, mathematics, complicated problem solving of particular sorts, etc.), are our means of testing very well-vetted for socio-cultural biases. Many of them clearly have such biases (e.g., dependence on educational quality, acquisition of particular developmental and life skills by the testing age, ignoring of alternative skills, not taking account of the effects of social suppression and trauma, etc., etc.). When it comes to research purporting to show a particular group is more rather than less capable (the most common seems to be the claim that highly endogamous Askenazi Jews are better at numerical and some other tasks), there's been a lot of debunking of it (nor will it matter for the future since they are not very endogamous any longer except among the socially insular Orthodox Jewish community; one might as well make arguments about the Amish or the Trobriand Islanders). I don't know whether it's been entirely successful debunking, but the point is that there is very clearly not a scientific consensus that the "Ashkenazim are smarter" idea is true.
And all this is aside from the fact that the typical Western view of "race" is largely nonsense. The short version is that humans have been massively miscegenating since prehistory, even in places where doing so is particular difficult (e.g. the Arctic circle, Oceania, etc.) We have the illusion of races because the average human has, when given much of a choice, a strong innate desire to breed with someone who looks like him/herself (more accurately, as has been proven experimentally, like those whom that person spent early childhood with). The consequence of this is strong regional selection for outward appearance, reinforced by environmental evolutionary pressures, e.g. to have darker skin and thicker, darker hair near the equator). But there's no tie between genes for particular coloration (and other really obvious phenotype like nose width, breast size, etc.), and genes for more subtle things. Even some apparent ties are illusory, e.g. "Africans are more prone to sickle-cell anemia". It's random accident and, on a long scale, a temporary coincidence. In reality, people with a particular malarial adaptation are more prone to SCA, and they're statistically likely to be African[-diaspora] simply because of where that particular anti-malaria gene arose. But it has nothing to do with their skin color or nose width or whatever. If they breed with someone from Europe or Asia, with a different anti-malaria gene, their offspring are likely to get the other A-M gene, but end with an obviously African-ish appearance due to the dominance of those phenotype genes. And this is hardly theoretical; African-Americans (other than recent-generation African immigrants) have much lower incidence of SCA than do the sub-Saharan African populations ancestral to them (on that side of their genealogy). So, think about the consequences of how genes and chromosomes actually work, not how people wrongly imagine they do, when it comes to subtle traits like numerical or linguistic or spatial navigation or memory skills that don't have even any obvious regional adaptation correlation. The likelihood of there being a causal link is very low. A direct analogy is that we're pretty sure that Western men have larger penises today, on average, than they did in antiquity (judging from ancient art, mummies, etc.), entirely because of female preferential selection, yet there is no evidence of any other change: European[-diaspora] men are not less or more smart, better or worse fathers, less or more warlike, etc., etc., than their forbears, and there's no reason to suspect they would be since there's no reason a gene for the size of particular body part would have any connection to entirely unrelated heritable traits.
Keep in mind also that "science" is variable and often does not live up to its ideals. E.g., most physical anthropologists in China, despite being able do proper research – except on one particular thing – and to get published in good journals, are still indoctrinated to believe that the main Chinese cluster of ethnicities (or East Asians in general) are descended from an entirely different early hominid than other humans, despite the rest of the scientific world having disproved this, beyond any shadow of doubt. They simply ignore data that doesn't suit their preferences (just as medical proto-science in the West for over a millennium ignored the bare facts about certain internal human body parts, because they disagreed with ancient Greek dogma; something similar happened in Japan before extensive contact with the West and Western medical literature; cf. also traditional Chinese medicine's resistance to scientific facts). There's a similar cultural blind spot when it comes to psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral scientists, neurologists, ethologists, some sociologists, etc., in the West and their firm belief in the legitimacy of IQ tests, despite the fact that any cultural anthropologist (and some sociologists) can point out really obvious socio-cultural biases in those tests. (Same goes for MBTI/Keirsey personality testing, NLP/EST, Freudian/Jungian psychoanalysis, and various other downright pseudoscientific but plausible-seeming-to-some-people approaches to human cognitive assessment that have become "big deals" but which unravel under scrutiny.)
So, yes, do more RfCs, but keep in mind that WP has a responsibility to not harm the world. Something like this really rises to WP:MEDRS levels of sourcing rigor, combined with a "WP is here to make the world better" focus in the writing of material on this topic. If stuff gets really nasty, it'll be time for another ArbCom or AE filing. And it probably will get really nasty. Just be aware that if you go the route of arguing that there's good science behind hereditary intelligence differences, even in a minor way, you will be subjected to character assassination, and the admin corps generally will not defend you, since doing so would subject them to the same [mis]treatment. WP is hardly immune to socio-politics and to cancel culture, and is dominated by American and British liberals (perhaps largely for the better, but not without occasional consequences). So, be sure you want to run that gantlet, and be extra sure you have both the sourcing to back it up and a way to write about it that doesn't play into racists' hands. That said, if something has been getting a lot of press, WP should cover it along with critical scientific response to it, so it cannot be "run away with" by bad reporting and worse misinterpretation of what the reporting said, based in turn on unfaithful overgeneralization from extremely limited scientific data and conclusions.
PS: One of the reasons I've been staying away from all this for some time is that even if it did eventually turn out to be incontrovertible that there are heritable cognitive differences tied to ethnicity (which I doubt), WP isn't doing any harm by "failing" to say so at this early, iffy stage. (WP is incomplete and not 100% up-to-date on at least hundreds of thousands of topics, and "we are all equal" is not a terrible fiction to maintain if it did turn out to be a fiction). Jumping on that racial-intelligence-differences bandwagon and ultimately being wrong about it would do a great deal of harm, both in the real world and to WP's reputation. Meanwhile, avoidance of siding with racialists on this question has no negative consequences. Another way of looking at it: Just letting the leftists own this topic for the foreseeable future, censorious biases and all, has fewer predictable bad outcomes than effectively ceding it to the far right. The centrist/moderate thing to do is to continue to maintain that the jury is still out, and until that's incontrovertibly no longer the case, we treat it at least as WP:UNDUE if not literally WP:FRINGE. A related argument is that if we have WP:BLP policy because we care about negative effects of bad encylcopedism even on a single individual, we necessarily also must care even more about negative effects on entire groups of them.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- Thank you for the very thorough and thoughtful response. It sounds like you're essentially advocating for First, do no harm, which is certainly a very reasonable argument, but also gives me some cause for concern. I agree with your concerns about the definitions of the concepts of race and intelligence, but I think all we can do is follow how the scientific community resolves those issues. Besides that, I think my counterargument is twofold, with both points stemming from my disagreement with the claim that in the status quo WP isn't doing any harm:
- 1) The belief that all differences are 100% environmental and 0% genetic can be harmful in its own right. That belief can be used to advance the argument that any and all inequalities are due to overt or systemic racism. If that turns out to be wrong, very real societal harm is caused by seeing everything solely through the lens of rooting out systemic racism and failing to pursue other necessary reforms; in that respect, WP is causing harm by suppressing information that gives a full and accurate picture of the debate. To be clear, I think racism in all its forms is abhorrent and a very real problem. But I think it is also harmful to suppress information that gives a more accurate understanding of the current scientific consensus, when that may have a very real impact on the argument that all inequalities are a priori due to discrimination. See the examples given of harm done by belief in the blank slate theory here[16].
- 2) Should the suppression of facts in the face of foreseeable misuse by bad actors trump WP:Verifiability? In my view, making an editorial decision based not on the evidence at hand but in consideration of the negative societal implications of including that information, is a dangerous road to go down for an encyclopedia. For example, couldn't that argument also be extended to removing any mention of the fact that there is a ~1 standard deviation gap in black-white IQ scores, since that fact can be used to support any number of racist/hateful/white supremacist arguments? Doesn't China make a similar argument for the good of society in favor of suppressing information about the Tiananmen Square protests? I understand the fact that the science is unresolved complicates matters somewhat, and certainly sympathize with the desire to simply "let the dust settle" first so to speak, but suppressing information just strikes me as very dangerous and antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for. As long as the jury is still out, I think it's important for WP to convey that fact. That's all I'm pushing for, and I think the article currently fails to accurately convey that in several key ways. Stonkaments (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: Yes, the medical-practice principle is a good analogy, since what is being made is essentially a medical claim, though a thinly disguised one. As for "all we can do is follow how the scientific community resolves those issues", MEDRS is again very good guidance: We do not rely on primary research (journal papers), which is a form of WP:PRIMARY sourcing (though we might cite it secondarily so more technical readers have easy access to the original material, and we sometimes also use it more directly for attributed statements when they are themselves key elements of the story, e.g. a notable controversy over a purportedly scientific claim). Primary research is extremely often disproved by later confirmation attempts by other scientists. Nor do we rely on the mainstream press's understanding of the science, which is generally going to be incomplete at best and is often flat-out wrong. (That even holds in non-medical science articles, though we don't have a "WP:SCIENCERS" saying so; it's just a de facto consensus that, for example, no amount of non-expert material written about how Pluto really is a planet actually means much encyclopedically.) Similarly, we have no medical-sphere permissiveness for blogs, op-eds, and other WP:SPS by alleged experts, which we might accept in a different topic, like pool playing or the recording industry. As with un- or poorly-sourced WP:BLP claims, uncertain medical ones should simply be deleted on-sight. What we rely on is high-quality scientific secondary sourcing, mostly literature reviews, especially systematic reviews. This is a good model to follow with anything that makes claims about human psychology/cognition, which is definitely covered by MEDRS as much as claims about the human pancreas or immune system. (MEDRS is even generally held to apply to veterinary material.)
On your numbered points, in order: The issue isn't really about whether "all differences are 100% environmental and 0% genetic"; it's about whether any of the heritable ones are tied, with certainty, to ethnicity/race. So, I would agree with you that the most activistic persons who are making bogus "100% environmental" arguments need to be removed from the topic area if they become (or get more) disruptive. There is no question that, say, two people with the same congenital mental disability have highly elevated risk of producing children who also have the same disability. It's much less certain that two MENSA members with advanced degrees are going to produce smarter-than-average children (and that they would still turn out that way if, say, raised in the foster-care system after their parents' untimely deaths – i.e., subjected to an entirely different environment), much less whether either a positive or negative potential for short-term heritability of a trait we cluster under the ever-changing "intelligence" umbrella has any connection whatever to broad groups of people who share some degree of regional genetic origin.
I agree that we should not "suppress information", but in a topic like this it doesn't qualify as information rather than as conjecture and theory and tentative data interpretation until a higher hurdle than usual has been leapt (in the real world, not just in WP editors' selective attempts at proving their points). And not everything that is factual must be covered by Wikipedia; WP not writing about something isn't "suppression", or we could not have WP:N, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, etc. (That said, I have argued before, when people have tried to delete race-and-intelligence articles outright, that WP needs to cover the topic and do it really well, otherwise it effectively cedes writing about the topic to far-right webboards.) To the extent the standard deviation gap you mention is being covered here (largely because it's a huge-ass public controversy – cf. The Bell Curve and our coverage of it – not because it's rigorous or meaningful science), and we're covering it with clarification about what it means, and what little can be drawn from it, and how much criticism IQ tests themselves have against them, etc., plus all the debate we've had about going even that far on the subject in Wikipedia content ... that all is probably a good indicator of how to proceed on related topics, though perhaps with even more caution. Public belief in the accuracy of IQ tests (viewed a lot like lie-detector tests and personality tests) is much lower than public belief in the accuracy of anything that claims to be "genetic testing", as a result of things like police-procedural TV shows. It's even been observed in the legal profession that juries are increasingly difficult to convince to convict in rape and murder cases on the basis of traditional "circumstantial" evidence, because they've become conditioned to expect the genetic kind, and to trust it absolutely. This fallacious belief that "genetics" is just one thing, and something like infallibly powerful magic, has multiple effects. One of them is at play in this subject area.
Anyway, I'm not replying at length again just to argue; rather, I think the topic is important and covering it "just so" is important, too. I don't think I will, nor do I mean to, dissuade you from working on it in that direction, but I do hope to have a little effect on the approach. And I did want make sure (in the first reply) that you understand that pursuing it will have stressful costs. I've learned this the hard way by getting involved in gender identity and human sexuality topics, another sphere of over-politicized WP:DRAMA (and off-site conflict) that is also subject to a big mixture of science, pseudo-science, polarized posturing, witch-hunting, and potential for actual harm.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- Thank you for your thoughts, they're greatly appreciated. I will take everything you've said to heart, especially the utmost importance of covering the topic "just so", as well as the stressful personal costs you've mentioned. I was involved in an arbitration incident last year when I dove too zealously into another hot button topic, so I'm already somewhat aware of how stressful that sort of character assassination and general nastiness can be. Already it's being alleged this time around that my "only purpose here is to try to overturn the consensus and promote racialist hereditarianism"[17], so I'll definitely need to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing this debate further.
- ETA: I just discovered the guide to Wikistress[18] from your profile, which looks quite handy! Stonkaments (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: Aieee! I see the pitchforks are already being brandished in your direction. That bears a striking resemblance to what I was subjected to: the imputing of motives, the reductio ad absurdum, the fallacious confusion of seeking DUE coverage of X with a "promotion" of X. Those who are activists about Y often have (or pretend they have) a great deal of difficulty understanding that writing neutrally about the matter is not supporting X and being an opponent of Y; they just see anyone who is not parroting the Y dogma as necessarily an outright enemy of Y. It's part of our society's unfortunate shift toward polarization and echo chambers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: I know you are considering starting another RFC, but I would really appreciate it if you could wait another month so I can do it. I have a lot of experience with that article, and starting another RFC will cause more harm than good if it isn't handled in the right way. I encourage you to pursue other forms of dispute resolution or to make an Arbitration Enforcement report, and then if those things fail to resolve the issue, I'll start another RFC next month. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Youse might consider collaboratively drafting an RfC, and use AE as needed in the interim. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm very amenable to suggestions as I'm still somewhat new here and learning the ropes of how to best approach these heated issues. I wasn't planning to start another RfC, but rather bring the issue to WP:DRN (those are two separate things, right?) to resolve the narrow content dispute ongoing of whether "no evidence for a genetic component" accurately represents the cited sources and meets the requirements of WP:VERIFIABILITY. But if you think that will cause more harm than good for the community then I'll gladly hold off, so please let me know. Stonkaments (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- DRN's a very different process (and a weird and usually unsuccessful one; I don't think it'll be around much longer, for the same reason WP:MEDCAB came to an end). What you'd probably want is WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, or maybe even WP:NORN, depending on whether the problem is more one of (respectively): 1) problems identifying and accepting reliable sources and assessing their reliability; 2) pushing a personal or organizational/dogmatic viewpoint despite what sources say; or 3) misusing sources to weave, out of unrelated material, a novel-synthesis (WP:SYNTH) conclusion that cannot be found in any of them. It's been my experience that even when the issue is really no. 2 at root, RSN can be more effective (by focusing on sources instead of on editors and their viewpoints), though even NORN is that way to an extent, just a bit more subjective. They're all more effective than DRN, because they're open to general community assessment and can reach binding conclusions (like ANI), while DRN is dependent on a single volunteer to "get it" well enough to produce a solution that both sides agree to (tends not to happen). I think I would avoid NPOVN for this, because editors who agree with a PoV tend not to recognize that is is one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ferahgo the Assassin: @SMcCandlish: I've written up a draft for a WP:RSN discussion: User:Stonkaments/sandbox. Please let me know if you have any thoughts, objections, words of wisdom, etc.—greatly appreciated. And again, Ferahgo the Assassin if you think pursuing this discussion now will cause more harm than good, please let me know and I'll gladly hold off. Stonkaments (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Actually I'm thinking the discussion may be better suited for WP:NORN, as it is not so much a question of the reliability of the sources but a claim that is not supported by any of the sources. Stonkaments (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: If you want to try raising this issue at the NOR noticeboard, that's fine. My request was just that you not start a new RFC yet. I have two suggestions about your draft:
- DRN's a very different process (and a weird and usually unsuccessful one; I don't think it'll be around much longer, for the same reason WP:MEDCAB came to an end). What you'd probably want is WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, or maybe even WP:NORN, depending on whether the problem is more one of (respectively): 1) problems identifying and accepting reliable sources and assessing their reliability; 2) pushing a personal or organizational/dogmatic viewpoint despite what sources say; or 3) misusing sources to weave, out of unrelated material, a novel-synthesis (WP:SYNTH) conclusion that cannot be found in any of them. It's been my experience that even when the issue is really no. 2 at root, RSN can be more effective (by focusing on sources instead of on editors and their viewpoints), though even NORN is that way to an extent, just a bit more subjective. They're all more effective than DRN, because they're open to general community assessment and can reach binding conclusions (like ANI), while DRN is dependent on a single volunteer to "get it" well enough to produce a solution that both sides agree to (tends not to happen). I think I would avoid NPOVN for this, because editors who agree with a PoV tend not to recognize that is is one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm very amenable to suggestions as I'm still somewhat new here and learning the ropes of how to best approach these heated issues. I wasn't planning to start another RfC, but rather bring the issue to WP:DRN (those are two separate things, right?) to resolve the narrow content dispute ongoing of whether "no evidence for a genetic component" accurately represents the cited sources and meets the requirements of WP:VERIFIABILITY. But if you think that will cause more harm than good for the community then I'll gladly hold off, so please let me know. Stonkaments (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Youse might consider collaboratively drafting an RfC, and use AE as needed in the interim. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: I know you are considering starting another RFC, but I would really appreciate it if you could wait another month so I can do it. I have a lot of experience with that article, and starting another RFC will cause more harm than good if it isn't handled in the right way. I encourage you to pursue other forms of dispute resolution or to make an Arbitration Enforcement report, and then if those things fail to resolve the issue, I'll start another RFC next month. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: Aieee! I see the pitchforks are already being brandished in your direction. That bears a striking resemblance to what I was subjected to: the imputing of motives, the reductio ad absurdum, the fallacious confusion of seeking DUE coverage of X with a "promotion" of X. Those who are activists about Y often have (or pretend they have) a great deal of difficulty understanding that writing neutrally about the matter is not supporting X and being an opponent of Y; they just see anyone who is not parroting the Y dogma as necessarily an outright enemy of Y. It's part of our society's unfortunate shift toward polarization and echo chambers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: Yes, the medical-practice principle is a good analogy, since what is being made is essentially a medical claim, though a thinly disguised one. As for "all we can do is follow how the scientific community resolves those issues", MEDRS is again very good guidance: We do not rely on primary research (journal papers), which is a form of WP:PRIMARY sourcing (though we might cite it secondarily so more technical readers have easy access to the original material, and we sometimes also use it more directly for attributed statements when they are themselves key elements of the story, e.g. a notable controversy over a purportedly scientific claim). Primary research is extremely often disproved by later confirmation attempts by other scientists. Nor do we rely on the mainstream press's understanding of the science, which is generally going to be incomplete at best and is often flat-out wrong. (That even holds in non-medical science articles, though we don't have a "WP:SCIENCERS" saying so; it's just a de facto consensus that, for example, no amount of non-expert material written about how Pluto really is a planet actually means much encyclopedically.) Similarly, we have no medical-sphere permissiveness for blogs, op-eds, and other WP:SPS by alleged experts, which we might accept in a different topic, like pool playing or the recording industry. As with un- or poorly-sourced WP:BLP claims, uncertain medical ones should simply be deleted on-sight. What we rely on is high-quality scientific secondary sourcing, mostly literature reviews, especially systematic reviews. This is a good model to follow with anything that makes claims about human psychology/cognition, which is definitely covered by MEDRS as much as claims about the human pancreas or immune system. (MEDRS is even generally held to apply to veterinary material.)
- @Stonkaments and Ferahgo the Assassin: This is apt to get ugly. Keep in mind that even if it turns out to be scientifically defensible that there's a slight average statistical variance in intelligence level along ethno-racial lines, this is essentially a dangerous thing to say, because wingnuts will latch onto and exaggerate it as a reason for discriminatory (or worse) behavior. WP needs to be super-mega-ultra-certain of the solidity of any scientific consensus in favor of the idea, and figure out a way to write about it that is engineered, in every clause of every sentence, to thwart attempts at misinterpretation and over-generalization.
- First, the disputed part of Hunt's textbook is available at Google books. If you raise the issue at a noticeboard, I suggest including this link so others can see what the book says directly.
- Second, I suggest mentioning that this issue exists on more than just the Race and intelligence article. The same wording cited to the same sources (Hunt, Mackintosh, Nisbett and Kaplan) has been copied to at least three other articles: Intelligence quotient [19], Heritability of IQ [20] and then again about 2/3 of the way through the first large paragraph added here [21], and Racial achievement gap in the United States (originally added in this edit [22] and then moved to the other article [23]). It may also have been copied to other articles that I'm not remembering. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would add that the only way to avoid a total freakout is going to be front-loading the discussion with a note that this is not about positing that intelligence is mostly heritable and that the environmental factors are not the primary ones; it's about not suppressing the science saying there is at least a minor genetic factor – and that our encyclopedic writing goals will include ensuring that this is not misinterpreted or exaggerated in any way that supports racist notions. However, there are some other potential pitfalls here, and it'll require some source combing.
First, be sure that "heritable" means true-breeding genetic heritability in all this material. While it's not common usage, a child receiving damaged or otherwise altered genes/chromosomes from a parent, caused by environmental factor (radioactive, chemical, etc.) and not inherited in turn by that parent from a grandparent, is sometimes imprecisely referred to as inherited or genetic.
Even when the normal sense of long-term, evolutionary heritability is what is meant, that doesn't necessarily tie into ethnicity/race. E.g., if Test Student A did poorly and Parent A1 and Parent A2 both do poorly on the same test, and genetic analysis shows they share a trait that is demonstrated to effect these scores, on average, then that is some evidence for performance heritability, but it is not evidence for it being tied to a particular population-of-general-geographic-origin or a particular looks-like-a-race-to-me phenotypic appearance trait associated with a general geographic ancestral origin. It would have to be shown that again and again and again people who are genetically mostly or entirely from that population carry this trait (not found much in other populations) and reliably pass it on and it reliably has a suppressive effect on the test results. (And the tests don't have cultural and related biases.)
Third, "race" is generally bullshit except as a socio-cultural force, but not all scientists outside of physical anthropology and the more sensible side of sociology understand this. There's more genetic diversity between neighboring groups in Africa, and there are more genetically identifiable ethnic groups there (aside from cultural identifiers of them) than in all of the rest of the world combined. That is, Aboriginal Australians, Danes, the Ainu of Japan, and the Yanomami of the Amazon are all more closely related to each other and more genetically similar to each other than two fairly endogamous groups in the same country in sub-Saharan Africa (who look superficially similar because of a much longer period of consistent environmental pressure, with the best adaptations to it spreading comparatively rapidly because haplogroups that come into contact). So, to the extent any claims are being made about "Europeans" versus "Africans", or "African Americans" versus "Asian Americans", and other broad pseudo-racial categories that our censuses like to use (because they encapsulate cultural views about "races"), that data is probably unreliable, even if a journal published it. And remember that WP doesn't rely in primary-research papers to begin with. What are systematic reviews saying? Are there not any? Then it's too soon for WP to be advancing something as scientifically factual, and we should be approaching this from a "public controversy" angle, with elevated amounts of attribution, quotation, balancing, and hedging.
I go into the race illusion quite a bit in WP:R&E. It's easy to invent a fake "race" by just selecting some appearance traits and an environmental factor; e.g. one could divide the world into a "Sunbelt race" and a "Coldzone race" by latitude and relative darkness of hair and skin, but this would bear little resemblance to genetic history. This is pretty much the situation with the present "races", since sub-Saharan Africans aren't closely inter-related, and the entire "White race" is just a variant of the "East Asian race" that lost epicanthic folds and got a bit paler (mostly - there are Koreans, Japanese, Mongols, Asian Siberians, etc., who are paler than many Mediterranean "White people"). "Whites" on average are closer related in most genetic respects to northern East Asians and northern South Asians than any of those are to southern East Asians, southern South Asians, and Oceanian peoples. However, particular traits like epicanthic folds, certain skull shapes, melanin level, etc., quickly migrate from one group to another if they interbreed with any regularity; genes do not travel as total "racial packages". The essay gets into that as well, in discussing anti-malarial genes.
What proper science is likely to be showing or eventually show is some minor level of heritable performance difference between haplogroups, which do not correspond closely to "races". Having said all this (in more than one place), I don't think I want to get very deeply involved in further RfCs, noticeboardings, etc., on this subject. It's a hot potato, and my hands are already burning enough from gender/sexuality hot potatoes.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)- Yes indeed, it is quite the complex subject, and I'll admit I'm far from an expert in the field. Until recently I had no idea just how fraught and ill-defined the concept of race is. I wonder if research that continues to look at "race" as the defining variable rather than haplogroups, etc. is partly a case of "meet them where they are", where it remains valuable to use such an ill-defined idea precisely because it is such a socio-cultural force as you say? Or is it more often simply a sign of sloppy/naive thinking?
- And I totally agree that the best way for Wikipedia to approach this is from a "public controversy" angle, with the heightened levels of attribution, balance, and hedging that entails. Unfortunately, as Gardenofaleph pointed out, I think the RfC makes it difficult (impossible?) to provide the appropriate level of balance.[24] Nevertheless, despite the usual personal attacks and motivated reasoning, I'm still encouraged by all of the recent talk page discussion. I was starting to lose hope that policy and careful consideration could ever overcome ideology on a topic like this, but there's still hope yet. I appreciate your patience in taking the time to share your thoughts. It's a shame that WP is missing out on a thoughtful, moderate voice of reason on this topic, but of course I totally understand given the circumstances. Stonkaments (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would add that the only way to avoid a total freakout is going to be front-loading the discussion with a note that this is not about positing that intelligence is mostly heritable and that the environmental factors are not the primary ones; it's about not suppressing the science saying there is at least a minor genetic factor – and that our encyclopedic writing goals will include ensuring that this is not misinterpreted or exaggerated in any way that supports racist notions. However, there are some other potential pitfalls here, and it'll require some source combing.
- Second, I suggest mentioning that this issue exists on more than just the Race and intelligence article. The same wording cited to the same sources (Hunt, Mackintosh, Nisbett and Kaplan) has been copied to at least three other articles: Intelligence quotient [19], Heritability of IQ [20] and then again about 2/3 of the way through the first large paragraph added here [21], and Racial achievement gap in the United States (originally added in this edit [22] and then moved to the other article [23]). It may also have been copied to other articles that I'm not remembering. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish and Ferahgo the Assassin: Sorry to bump this again, but I'm feeling rather disillusioned at the moment given the admin who closed the WP:NOR/N discussion seems to be rather biased on this topic.[25][26][27] Is there a way to have an impartial admin review the close, or should I just chalk it up to the tide going the wrong way right now? :/ Stonkaments (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: I don't think it's worth challenging the closure at this point, but please don't give up on this topic area yet. I'm still planning on opening the new RFC that I mentioned within the week, and I think a new RFC probably is the only thing that could make a difference on these articles. My apologies for the delay on this; preparing the RFC has taken longer than I'd anticipated. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Editors at that article are now denying even the rather mundane and uncontroversial fact that considerations of political correctness have played any role in the research of race/intelligence[28]. I give up. Stonkaments (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonkaments: I don't think it's worth challenging the closure at this point, but please don't give up on this topic area yet. I'm still planning on opening the new RFC that I mentioned within the week, and I think a new RFC probably is the only thing that could make a difference on these articles. My apologies for the delay on this; preparing the RFC has taken longer than I'd anticipated. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Putting a comment in the Survey subsection of the MoS Internet discussion
I see you made a joke in reply to a comment in the survey subsection of the Internet discussion on the MoS talk page. I can't say I'm unamused :) There is only one small problem: I'd like to keep that area clear of any replies for readability, and I would have just moved your comment to the Discussion subsection, but because it's a joke, I'm not sure what to do with it. I guess it doesn't really matter if that one reply is up in the Survey subsection, but then there's inconsistency, and it might cause others to continue to reply in the Survey subsection too. I hesitate to move it to the Discussion section because it isn't actually discussion as such. Do you have any advice? :) Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: This should do it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I was actually thinking of that solution after I'd logged off – initially I was thinking "well shouldn't I add the response indicator if I move it? That seems a bit overkill for a joke response". Moving it and not adding a response indicator is probably the best solution :) DesertPipeline (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the beneficial tweak above, pretty much all of your comments on that page appear solid, and from what could be recognised as position of understanding of the issue. Frankly, I had nothing substantial to add given that you largely nailed it. Chumpih. (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thankee. I'll add that the purpose of my joke to was to defuse what appeared to be an intent to personalize / polarize / wiki-politicize the discussion; I ignored the jab and made a further joke building on the joke at the end of the jab, to lighten the mood and dismiss the jab by refusing to comment on it. Moving this banter out of the !vote section mostly thwarts the purpose of my response (which already got a Thank). But I don't think it's a big deal. The outcome of that RfC (discussion at which is winding down) is already pretty clear. I disagree vehemently with the direction it's going, but I know when I'm outvoted and am not going to WP:BLUDGEON about it; my response to Dicklyon will probably be my last there. I'm the first to point out that no one is happy with 100% of what MoS or any other guideline says, and no P&G line-item has buy-in from 100% of editors, so I have to live with that as well. In fairness, since this medium lacks facial expression, voice tone, etc., it is actually possible that the personalized animosity in the original post was itself intended as a joke, in which case my joke response helps to reinforce it as a
{{FBDB}}situation; either way, I think my joke reply was the correct approach. I understand DesertPipeline's "thread management" purpose and observe that it has had the effect of keeping the !vote section clearer and easier to assess; I've sometimes taken this refactoring approach myself. In retrospect, another tactic I could've used would've been EEng's style of making joke replies with sidebars, but that thread is already heavy with those. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)- My heart swells with pride to see that my philosophy of giving humor serious consideration is diffusing more and more among our esteemed fellow editors. EEng 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, pride is a deadly sin, so you're clearly bound directly for Hell. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm relatively new to those pages, and the levity and charm of those sidebars was a delight. Nice one User:EEng.Chumpih. (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- For sure it's tricky for the spirit in which a comment was made to be conveyed by the comment itself. There's some quote along the lines of "it is the curse of those who express themselves to be misunderstood" - I'll try and find it.
And re. the whole "Internet" issue: language shifts over time, even in more formal circles. Your stance strikes a sensible balance. Chumpih. (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC) - Karl Popper: "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." (on reflection, I think the words above are sweeter) Chumpih. (talk) 23:34 + 23:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The outcome of that RfC ... is already pretty clear.
- I'm obviously going to be biased here, but I feel like those of us in favour of capitalisation for Internet as a name have a stronger position than those who favour no capitalisation. Their position is "others don't do it any more" and ours is "it's a proper noun" – which I still feel is true, and still feel can't be taken away by popular opinion. I probably shouldn't speak without checking, but has anyone who is against capitalisation put forward the position "it's incorrect to capitalise it"? I'm pretty sure all that's been said is "it's not done now", so they're not suggesting it's wrong. There may be more responses in the "don't capitalise" subsection, but this is exactly why I placed that reminder about WP:NOTVOTE – yes, that option has the numerical advantage, but I don't think those in favour of it are giving convincing rationales. Again though: Most probably biased :) DesertPipeline (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, the entire argument for lower-case "internet" is simply the WP:Common-style fallacy. I.e., whatever is most common, stylistically, in news and other lowest-common-denominator media is somehow what WP must do. (If this fallacy were not a fallacy, WP would have no need of a style guide at all; we'd just follow AP Stylebook, since it accounts for by far the dominant style in English-language news publications by count of both number of works and number of readers.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could mention that in the discussion section under a new bullet point? It's a good point :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Someone else should. I've already said over-much there, and the point is already implicit in what I've posted in several comments. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could mention that in the discussion section under a new bullet point? It's a good point :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nah, the entire argument for lower-case "internet" is simply the WP:Common-style fallacy. I.e., whatever is most common, stylistically, in news and other lowest-common-denominator media is somehow what WP must do. (If this fallacy were not a fallacy, WP would have no need of a style guide at all; we'd just follow AP Stylebook, since it accounts for by far the dominant style in English-language news publications by count of both number of works and number of readers.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- My heart swells with pride to see that my philosophy of giving humor serious consideration is diffusing more and more among our esteemed fellow editors. EEng 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:Db-g11
I am not sure what problem your edit of 21:57, 13 December 2020 of Template:Db-g11 was intended to solve. In Draft:DJ Omen we have {{db-spam|category=biography|reason=biography}}, and with the help of Special:ExpandTemplates, we see that the newly inserted </b> in your edit shows up here as stripped. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Anomalocaris: You can just test this stuff for yourself in a matter of moments. See User:SMcCandlish/sandbox22 (the template and its sandbox will need to be in the same state when you look at that page as they were was when I wrote this). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I went to User:SMcCandlish/sandbox22, edited it, and clicked on lintHint, which I have installed, and it reports a stripped
</b>for the markup{{Db-g11|category=biography|reason=My comments}}, but not for the sandbox version. This agrees with what I reported before. Anomalocaris (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I went to User:SMcCandlish/sandbox22, edited it, and clicked on lintHint, which I have installed, and it reports a stripped
<b>
<i>
This user page may meet Wikipedia's
<a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion" title="Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion">
criteria for speedy deletion
</a>
</i>
because in its current form it serves only to
<a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam" title="Wikipedia:Spam">
promote
</a>
or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.
<br/>
<i>
Requester's additional rationale:
</i>
</b>
My comments: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum..
So, maybe lintHint has some kind of problem. Oh, what might be happening is that the parser maybe isn't smart enough to recognize an explicit </b> as closure of a <b> element that was opened by means of ''', so it is injecting a closing ''' after this, at whatever point such a closure is forced by the beginning of a new block element, and then later stages of the parser are removing that as dead code, so lintHint sees it being stripped out. This seems like a non-problem to me, the parser doing its job. I'm not sure how to "fix" it anyway. If we told the underlying meta-template to use explicit <b>...</b> HTML, it would still end up getting another one to strip out later (because the template would say to insert it there; it wouldn't be auto-generated). If we wrapped |reason='s input in a <div>...</div> with font-weight:normal, that would (being a block element) force auto-closure of the <b>, and again produce a redundant </b> later (auto-generated as in the current code). If we wrapped |reason='s input in a <span>...</span> with that CSS, it would be invalid if the input contained any block elements, like an explicit <p>...</p>, a {{pb}}, or even just a blank line that autogenerated a para. break. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is correct to infer from the fact that rendered output is well-formed HTML that wikitext is correct. I did a simple test.
{|
|<b>This is bold with a closing tag.</b>
|This is normal
|<b>This is bold without a closing tag.
|}
out of table
This generated generated the following HTML:
<table> <tbody><tr> <td><b>This is bold with a closing tag.</b> </td> <td>This is normal </td> <td><b>This is bold without a closing tag. </b></td></tr></tbody></table> <p>out of table </p>
The parser fixed my missing </b> for me, but the tag is still missing.
I agree with you that your addition of </b> does something useful, but note that Information for "Draft:DJ Omen" reports 1 stripped tag. It's not just lintHint, the error is really there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- This seems to be philosophic/semantic hair splitting. Whether the wiki code that's fed into the parser is perfect is ultimately irrelevant as long as it's within the parser's known handling capabilities, produces end-user correct HTML, and (ideally) on the editorial side isn't confusing, or at least not so confusing that s question or a review of talk comments doesn't resolve the confusion. We depend on every single day on the parser's own cleanup capabilities with regard to input – in parsing of talk pages, for example, which do all kind of awful things with list markup (by design) and in handling people's accidental or ignorant markup mistakes (like many a non-closed element, and frequent use of invalid elements, and so on). Even a lot of the markup used in our articles is blecherous (mismatching types of list markup, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the parser fixes a lot of mistakes and that it is helpful that it does this. But I also think that responsible Wikipedians should work to avoid lint errors, not intentionally introduce them, and cooperate with efforts to eliminate them. Your edit introduced a closing
</b>in the middle of an existing<b>...</b>generated by{{db-meta}}. It really is an error. However, any transclusion of {{Db-g11}} would be expected to be temporary. If this were a navigation template I would definitely insist that even a low-priority lint error must be fixed. Given the intended brief duration of any transclusion of {{Db-g11}}, for the moment I will let the matter drop. I may revisit it, though. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)- @Anomalocaris: I'm not meaning to suggest it should not be fixed, but I care (as I think most editors do) about end results at the user side, so I can't get worked up about this. I already have "work[ed] to avoid [the] lint error", as I've already walked you through in some detail. I've hardly been "irresponsible", I simply have limited amounts of volunteer time, and have to devote them to thing that actually make a practical difference. There is no simple solution, without doing a bunch of Lua (which I'm not really competent at) in the meta-template/module behind this stuff, to detect a
</b>in input and suppress the one that would normally be generated otherwise. Or, on some additional thinking, it might actually be as simple as moving the original</b>or'''(whichever it is), so that it it occurs before|reason=, and thus that parameter would no longer need any means of ending the boldface sooner. If we go that route, it would also be nice to move the closing "." so that it not forced after|reason=, which is apt to result in ".." since most people add a "." at the end of whatever sentence they'll write in there. But this is such a internal-oriented and short-term template I don't care much, honestly. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Anomalocaris: I'm not meaning to suggest it should not be fixed, but I care (as I think most editors do) about end results at the user side, so I can't get worked up about this. I already have "work[ed] to avoid [the] lint error", as I've already walked you through in some detail. I've hardly been "irresponsible", I simply have limited amounts of volunteer time, and have to devote them to thing that actually make a practical difference. There is no simple solution, without doing a bunch of Lua (which I'm not really competent at) in the meta-template/module behind this stuff, to detect a
- I do not anticipate that
'''being closed by </b> will be supported forever if at all in the future when Parsoid becomes the one parser. Best to try to sort out the issue today rather than later. Izno (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)- Sure. Again, I have no objection to finding a fix, it's just not rating high on my personal priority list. I think tweaking the underlying meta-template is the solution. I'm pleased to see that it (
{{db-meta}}) is a regular template not a Lua module, so it should at least not be difficult. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. Again, I have no objection to finding a fix, it's just not rating high on my personal priority list. I think tweaking the underlying meta-template is the solution. I'm pleased to see that it (
- I agree with you that the parser fixes a lot of mistakes and that it is helpful that it does this. But I also think that responsible Wikipedians should work to avoid lint errors, not intentionally introduce them, and cooperate with efforts to eliminate them. Your edit introduced a closing
Drago's century
Just occurred to me that Drago's century might be faster than 3:31, akin to trimming Ronnie's maximum time from 5:20 to 5:08. Splićanin (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- That'll be something to raise, with reliable sources, at the talk page of his article that or that of the event or where ever the claimed record belongs. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Splićanin: forgot to ping you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion
An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America1000 11:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rats. I was hoping there was some embarrassing piece-of-trash permastub from 2005 we were going to get rid of. LOL. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Starting an RFC on including the dash in "Virtual reality (noun)s"
Given the close over at Talk:Virtual reality headset, I would be happy to initiate an RFC on a WT:Manual of style related to the issue of whether a hyphened form of "virtual-reality" should be used when that's an adjective phrase attached to a noun. I think a wider input would be helpful to settle the matter across all of WP. --Masem (t) 22:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, especially since at least three editors are challenging that non-admin close as an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE + WP:NOTAVOTE failure. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Masem: forgot to ping. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment
In progressYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
COI Request on Dictionary.com Page
Hello User:SMcCandlish.
I see you belong to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference works group and was wondering if you could help me with a few minor edits to the Dictionary.com page? As I have declared, I am in a COI/paid relationship with Dictionary and am therefore adhering to the Wikipedia rules of seeking assistance from volunteer editors. I was wondering if you could review the requests I made on that talk page on March 3 and 8? Another editor added the COI edit request code which placed these requests into that queue. Those requests now date back to November. If you have the time and inclination, I'd greatly appreciate your assistance. Thank you in advance. Best, LeepKendall (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @LeepKendall: I'll try to look into it as time permits (and I have some experience resolving CoI edit requests), but I'm kind of swamped. If much of this has been languishing for a while already, I guess there's not a big hurry. If you don't see action on this stuff begin (from me or someone else) within a week, hit me up again here and I'll try to more explicitly block out some time for it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you User:SMcCandlish. I appreciate it, and your quick reply. I've reached out to several volunteers with no reply. LeepKendall (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hey there User:SMcCandlish. As you suggested on the 8th, I'm pinging you to see if you have a little time to review my edit requests on Dictionary.com? I truly appreciate your offer, and your busy-ness. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Took a longer break than expected, and am still playing catch-up .... — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey there User:SMcCandlish. As you suggested on the 8th, I'm pinging you to see if you have a little time to review my edit requests on Dictionary.com? I truly appreciate your offer, and your busy-ness. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you User:SMcCandlish. I appreciate it, and your quick reply. I've reached out to several volunteers with no reply. LeepKendall (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Pichenotte
looking for edit summary
hello from DLagasse...Stanton...Can you please show me how to view edit summaries, for example Grabergs recently made an edit on PICHENOTTE and removed external links, and I understand why, now, but I don't see how to look at edit summaries which would have saved me and him the trouble of some back and forth. You can email me if you prefer to answer that way. Thanks a lot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DVQuebec (talk • contribs) 04:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DVQuebec: Use the page-history feature, toward the top of the page (exactly where it is and what it's called will depend on your site skin and scripts; in my case it's "View history" and toward top right, but you might have it as "History" and just to the right of "Talk" or "Discuss", toward top-left of page). In there, you'll see a list of all edits, from newest on down, including the edit summaries. As for the issue that you're talking about, I've commented in detail at Talk:Pichenotte. PS: I just did a big cleanup pass on the article, but only for basic style and formatting stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
pronunciation...
yes , thanks, I will work on the re-wording as you suggest... a group or family of games... and I will check on pronunciation giudes... we stopped using 'peesh'-nut' because kids would giggle about using the pee word, so we used 'peash' - nut' but I will check pronunciation guide, possibly just a long 'e' with a horizontal line over it . I don't have it on my cellphone keyboard DVQuebec (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP has a specific system for doing these "respelling" pronunciation guides; see Template:Respell and Help:Pronunciation respelling key. In short, it is a codified system, not a "change it around as I like" thing. We also need even more strict IPA pron. guides for Eng. and Fr., but that takes a linguistics background (and I have that, so I'll do it, but it's low-priority given the general state of the article). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
text... size
@DVQuebec: I will increase the text size and make other adjustments you have suggested... busy schedule today but will work on it in the evenings to come DVQuebec (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest increasing any text size. Rather, the images that contain text inside them need to be large enough to be readable. However, there are too many images with too much text, so in the long run some of these need to be replaced. It's not a big deal (like lowest priority). Just making sure the lead image is legible is good enough for now. The overall organization of the article and the "story" it is telling, with what sources, is way more important to deal with.
Ultimately, there are just too many near-identical images, though. We need one to two good illustration of each board type, a diagram of scoring zones, an illustration of pieces close up (preferably including striker and queen – maybe I can do that, since you sent me pieces!), and perhaps also of pins in the one game type that uses them. At the bottom of the article we could do a WP:Gallery of additional images showing particularly handsome or antique boards, but the short list above is all we really, really need. Most of the text populating these images is text that belongs inside the article body (dimensions, etc.) If it's particular to a particular board, then it belongs (if it's important to include at all) as caption text under the image. So, basically, I think most of the images eventually need replacing. The original pics they are made up of will in many cases be more useful. I'm not sure if you uploaded those to Commons as well, or just these collages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks !!! for your expansive and insightful work on PICHENOTTE and two questions please...
Greetings Stanton. Thanks so much for your expansive and accurate work on the PICHENOTTE entry. I really appreciate it. The growing accuracy of information about this family of games, now impresses not only me, but my French Canadian friends and relatives. Yahoo! Your additional references to the games of billiards, pool and bocce are expansive and educational, giving readers who have familiarity with those games, a better appreciation for the subtleties of these seemingly simple folk games. Questions please: 1) I would like to ask your advice about the photos on the page. My intention was to make two 'quadrant photos' for each game. One to show just the game itself and the other to show the equipment, players, and the flicking methods. I thought perhaps showing them as thumbnails would be a good idea and then they could be opened and read easily and enjoyed in 'full size mode' - 900 pixel height. But perhaps readers don't realize you can click and open them. And I am having second thoughts. Perhaps there are too many, perhaps the size is wrong. I am also considering removing the quad photo in the introduction, since the intro now perhaps adequately describes a 'family' of games. 2) American Southwest pichenotte I would like to add 'American Southwest pichenotte' in a 'Final Four' mix for the time being, staying open to future considerations. The 'Final Four' Family: 1) Canadian-American carrom, 2) Canadian-American Pitchnut, 3) Canadian American crokinole and 4) American Southwest pichenotte. I plan to remove the India-International game from the quadrant photo in any case, if it stays. The descendants of French Canadian families have settled into the American Southwest, bringing the game of pichenotte with them. There is now a loosely knit but active group in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. The game is different from Canadian Crokinole - different physical dimensions and different rules. We have a mutually respectful relationship with many Canadian makers and players. But for the sake of both games and both 'parties' the differences can be highlighted in a way that is mutually respectful and educational. Your thoughts please, when you have time. DLagasse April 9, 2021 DVQuebec (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DVQuebec: One problem (in point no. 1) about using images people have to click on to read is that this doesn't really work on small mobile devices. It's also an accessibility issue, in that all the embedded text in these images is something blind users can't access, even with screen readers. A third, more minor, issue is WP:REUSE; article sections are best when they fairly well stand alone like mini-articles; if the images in a section are tightly relevant to that section, and they're not all just more and more cross-categorical comparison, this is better material (e.g. for extracting content about a specific game variant). Well-done sections are what we typically base spin-off articles on, when a main article gets too long. Oh, and close relevancy relationship between image and text in a section is also another accessibility boon, since screen readers parse these pages in a strict top-down, left-to-right manner; an image floated to the right will still have its alt text red out in the order of its appearance in the source code of the page (which is why I tweaked the order of a couple of them). For all of these reasons, it's better to use multiple images, with descriptive captions, rather than composites-of-icons pictures with a bunch of text in them pertaining to different sections.
My assumption is that you still have all your original images. I would probably be most helpful to upload those to commons, not just these collages. And please not with SCREAMING ALL-CAPS FILENAMES. Heh. They need not have terribly long names either; the image description page is where details go. As you know from before, I can help with the image cataloguing at Commons. Even if we did use one composite image somewhere, having separate ones available would be a boon.
On Q. 2: I think American Southwest pichenotte could be a difficult sell as an entire section. It would require multiple independent reliable sources (i.e. not from tournament promoters, etc.), that establish it as a separate-ruleset game. If the game itself is not radically different from another version, it should just be covered as a resurgence of regional play of that game in that area, not as a separate game. But if it really is a separate game: tournament promoter materials are probably good enough for establishing what the rules are (WP:PRIMARYUSE, WP:ABOUTSELF), but it would take various newspaper articles and such, the independent sources, to establish that it's noteworthy enough for us to bother writing about it. And where is this named "American Southwest pichenotte" coming from? It sounds like a descriptive label we've made up. If that's the case, and if this is really a unique game, then why doesn't it have its own name? And what kind of sourcing is there about differences in game equipment, that isn't coming from makers of it like yourself (WP:COI)?
I'm reminded of bocce, which has turned into a big deal across the US (probably also Canada) especially with indoor courts at large bar-restaurants in suburban to rural areas (where there's enough room). It has gone hand-in-hand with the resurgence of cornhole; places with one often also have the other). The house and regional rules will vary from place to place, but it doesn't make them separate games we need WP article sections about. Same with a lot of pool games, which can have a lot of regional variance, which is mostly non-encyclopedic. We write mostly about nationally and internationally standardized rule sets. I don't want this to sound like "WP cannot write about the SW game"; rather, the bar is kind of high to do it properly.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Pichenotte translating into French
Stanton, greetings, any advice on translating into French ? I have friends and family to help me. Also, it seems someone is going to ask for a citation in the introduction, relative to the 1880 patent for a variant. Assuming that is for the MB Ross game board, would you like me to cite The Crokinole Book? Thanks DVQuebec (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know French. And I wouldn't bother translating this while it still needs so much work. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. It's more important to get this up to at least Good Article quality first. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DVQuebec: Je parle francais. What exactly do you need translation of? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Done
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Re. recent events
Sorry for your loss. Don't worry about the comments, misunderstandings happen and so long everything's cleared up I think we don't need to have any bad thoughts over it. Understandable that you'd wish to take a break for personal reasons. Wish you best, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
My condolences
I am sorry to read of the death of your uncle. Please take care of yourself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- My condolences as well. Please take care of yourself and your family in these times. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 19:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- The header caught my attention: take my condolences as well, and see my talk for a piece of music that played a role in my life and was for a long time believed to have been written for a funeral, Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. Take good care. LeepKendall (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thankee. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. Take good care. LeepKendall (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Glutton for punishment
According to [29] you're signed up to get 99 RfC invites per month. If you don't mind my asking... is that really a good idea? EEng 02:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Actually, 99 is just the limit for that one section. SMcCandlish has a combined limit of 377 FRS notices per month across all sections, which is more than three times larger than the number of RFCs posted in the average month. However, nowhere near that number of notices are actually being sent, and the reason for that is the demand for FRS notices has become significantly larger than the number of notices the bot is capable of sending. See Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service#Too large * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Basically, I'm telling it "no limit", because there are never that many RfCs. The new bot actually sends out far fewer invites than the old one did. I don't get many, at least not by my standards. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
After this was closed, do you think it is worth opening a discussion on the MOS talk page? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: Personally, no. If the handful of CfD habitues who have an axe to grind about this want to continue the grinding, they can do that on their own time; I'm not going to open a thread for them and providing a further soapbox for their trivial anti-MoS grievanances. However, I've been away for a while, so if I've missed something and you think there's a need to have an MoS thread about it, please fill me in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Crown Dependencies
Just a little note of confusion about the RM at Talk:Crown Dependencies. Do you agree with that? — BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would have had to look into it more. At first blush is does look to be comparable to "British Overseas Territories", and is not just a descriptive phrase (i.e., it's not regularly substituted with alternative phrasing like "dependencies of the crown"; that's not totally unheard of, but it's unusual). I could have gone either way on it, but would have firmed up a position after some further research on the term/name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
DisregardYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
First sentences in lead section
Hello, I see that you have been involved with editing WP:LEAD. I'm curious to ask, for a film article, do you think it matters the order of characteristics? It seems like the assumed "default" order on numerous editors' part is to always put the director first. I think this is faulty to assume beyond directors who are household names, and that the first opening sentence should identify the most noteworthy characteristic of the film, as reflected by reliably-sourced coverage. Sometimes there can be competing characteristics, and I think there can be ways to prioritize them for proper flow. To share an example, The Mauritanian had this, which I find to say nothing immediately meaningful of the film in the first sentence, and I rewrote it to this. Another example that became contentious for me was Sound of Metal, where another editor insisted on putting the director first because for them, the director should always come first. I find for that example that the actor and/or the premise should be the noteworthy elements introduced first, based on coverage of the topic, with Marder following right after. Curious to know your thoughts on what matters or not, for film articles' opening sentences. (And if it can apply to TV series too, like how WandaVision doesn't name the starring actors until the second paragraph.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Erik: I agree with your edit at The Mauritanian. There is certainly no rule or even an informal consensus that directors should be listed first, and doing that is sometimes nonsensical (e.g. when the producer has more influence and/or when the director doesn't attach their name to it formally; both happened with Caligula, which was mostly directed by Tinto Brass then completed by producer Bob Guccione after a creative falling out). Anyway, this (pretty much exactly what you've written above, minus reference to me in particular) would be a good discussion to open at WT:MOSFILM, with a crossreference at WT:MOSTV since the outcome could affect TV show articles, too. Or write it up as a formal RfC to introduce particular guideline wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate the feedback.
Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) - FWIW, I would have thought the most defining characteristic for any film would be the genre, not the director. It's a little like putting the studio who produced a video game first, rather than what it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Lee Vilenski, I agree with you. The vast majority of film articles open with the year and the nationality and the genre, unless the nationality or the genre are hard to classify. I was thinking more of what should come after "film". I do worry that works based on comic books suffer from prioritizing companies over other elements. Like with WandaVision, the actors who play Wanda and Vision respectively aren't even mentioned into the second paragraph. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) - FWIW, I would have thought the most defining characteristic for any film would be the genre, not the director. It's a little like putting the studio who produced a video game first, rather than what it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate the feedback.
Catching up
I'm back, but am playing catch-up. Something like 30 threads to go through (that I've been notified of). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
A user interaction
I note your interaction with Keith-264. I have had problems with this editor (Talk:Channel Dash#Retrograde edit - not a short read, I am afraid, but only overwhelming detailed reference to sources seems to have any leverage) and the article concerned is poorer as a result of his ownership. Quite a lot of his output disregards sources (there are citations, but they tend not to support the article fully). It is possible to "win" (I dislike this word in this context, but cannot find better) on a small element of text, but too exhausting to get other bits of the article fixed.
Just a bit of sharing of exasperation. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ThoughtIdRetired: Users who are long-term combative and disruptive and such tend to get topic-banned and/or indeffed eventually. I've learned to have patience. Either their behavior will adjust along WP:HOTHEADS lines, or the community will have enough of it at some point. I don't like it, either, when an article is in worse shape because of someone's PoV pushing, etc., but "there is no deadline" and it will work out in the long run. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page
DoneAn RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- OP failed to mention that this RfC appears premature and highly inappropriate, as they rushed to open it[30][31] while there is ongoing discussion at RS/N about how best to word it, and where to hold it. Stonkaments (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Proposal to start a new RFC" is already closed (as I kind of expected) because the RfC was running, whether it was opened prematurely or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've commented in the RfC, which is verging on WP:SNOW anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please look at the timestamps. At the time when the current RFC was opened on the talk page of the race and intelligence article, there was an emerging consensus at the RS noticeboard that the new RFC should occur at the NPOV noticeboard, and more importantly that it should address the issue of misrepresented sources that has been the main source of dispute on these articles. NightHeron was the only editor who rejected this proposal, and he stated that he was opening the new RFC under his own terms in order to ensure that the widely-supported proposal at RSN could not be implemented. Then, after the new RFC had been opened in a manner contrary to the consensus at RSN, the proposal at RSN was closed.
- To understand what the main source of dispute over these articles has been, see the summary given here by Ferahgo the Assassin, as well as the summaries given by Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph and Stonkaments that she linked to in her vote directly below. It seems pretty clear these sources are being misrepresented, but every attempt to correct the misrepresentations has been rejected as incompatible with the decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory. That's what this dispute really is about, but the current RFC is framed in a way that will make this issue impossible to address. The wording of the current RFC does not make it clear that as a practical matter, this RFC is about whether or not the article must include the material that probably misrepresents its sources, and that votes in favor of classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory will be interpreted as supporting the inclusion of this material. --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Adding to this comment: I remember you from last year's RFC, and you were one of the least ideological editors among those who were in favor of classifying it as a fringe theory, so I know you'll listen to reason. Could you please read Ferahgo's summary of the sourcing dispute that this RFC actually is about? It would be very valuable if you could leave a comment in the RFC explaining that for everyone who has not been following this dispute over the past few months. It isn't possible for me to comment in the RFC myself, because it is occurring on an EC-protected page, which excludes all users who have less than 500 edits. --AndewNguyen (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- To understand what the main source of dispute over these articles has been, see the summary given here by Ferahgo the Assassin, as well as the summaries given by Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph and Stonkaments that she linked to in her vote directly below. It seems pretty clear these sources are being misrepresented, but every attempt to correct the misrepresentations has been rejected as incompatible with the decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory. That's what this dispute really is about, but the current RFC is framed in a way that will make this issue impossible to address. The wording of the current RFC does not make it clear that as a practical matter, this RFC is about whether or not the article must include the material that probably misrepresents its sources, and that votes in favor of classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory will be interpreted as supporting the inclusion of this material. --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
DoneYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Can we close this discussion and/or implement your proposal that seems to be generally supported?It's been more than three months since I've started it, two weeks since the date you aimed (21 April), and it's exactly the day that I asked for (a month since 6 April). Yet it's a week until the discussion will be archived, which we definitely shouldn't miss.I'm pretty certain that your proposal can be overall considered successful (even the one who initially opposed didn't continue to do so after your clarifications), I'm just not sure how exactly to perform the closure. So I'm relying on your experience on that matter. — Mike Novikoff 05:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mike Novikoff: I've asked for a closure at WP:ANRFC. And posted a note about that request to the discussion itself, which should be enough to reset the archive timer. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Two RM queries
DoneHi SMC, as someone who understands most policies/guidelines far better than me, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on these two potential rms. I saw Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, and am wondering if the Reception history of Jane Austen should be moved to Reception of Jane Austen and Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music to simply Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach. The former because "history" seems implied in reception, and the latter because it seems more WP:CONCISE, but I remain unsure. Aza24 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Aza24: Well, we definitely should have a consistent titling pattern. What you might do is something like:
{{subst:Rm
|current1=Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien
|current2=Reception history of Jane Austen
|current3=Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music
|reason=We should have a [[WP:CONSISTENT]] title convention for such articles. See below for a list of possibilities, and feel free to add additional ones. They range from a focus on [[WP:CONCISE]] to a focus on [[WP:PRECISE]], and all are [[WP:RECOGNIZABLE]] and arguably [[WP:NATURAL]].
}}
# Reception of [name]
# Reception history of [name]
# Reception of [name]'s works
# Reception of [name]'s [kind of works]
# Reception of the works of [name]
# Reception of the [kind of works] of [name]
~~~~
===Comments===
* [Aza24 actual recommendation and rationale here.] ~~~~- If you like that, you can just copy-paste the entire block. Leaving out
|new1=, etc., will generate "?" in place of a suggested new titles (thus "• Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien → ?", etc., in the list of pages to move). - It's probably worth looking for additional pages to add to this multi-nomination.
- Personally, I would favor no. 3 on this list as maximally consistent and less ambiguous (as I often say, "any attempt at disambiguation that introduces a new ambiguity is, by definition, a failure"). "Reception of [name]" is too easily misunderstood as reception of the person into society in general, e.g. reception of their socio-political positions, etc., etc. Consider the lit-crit and fandom reception of J. K. Rowling's novels, versus public reception of her stance on trans issues in the UK. Big difference, even in the minds of the same person (e.g., a lover of the Harry Potter stories who is appalled at Rowling's TERFism). Similarly, Ralph Nader has a very different reception for his published works on consumer safety and similar topics, versus his abortive but repeated efforts as a would-be politician. However, I don't think we need to use "Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien's writings", "Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music", etc. (or the "Reception of the [whatever] of [name]" versions). It's over-precision when "works" will do. I would propose "works" here because "work" is again ambiguous (Nader's political campaigns qualify as "work" in the mass-noun sense, and so on). And MoS uses the count noun "works" when refering to published works, not "work" (except in specifically singular phrases like "For a work published in a language other than English ..."). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- SMC, this is exceptionally helpful. Your formatting for the RM seems great—I dare not set it up right now as I've been on Wikipedia way too much today. I'll do so sometime soon and let you know; after reading your rationale I would agree that #3 seems ideal. Aza24 (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Now done at Talk:Reception history of Jane Austen#Requested move 8 May 2021 Aza24 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've commented there. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Now done at Talk:Reception history of Jane Austen#Requested move 8 May 2021 Aza24 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- SMC, this is exceptionally helpful. Your formatting for the RM seems great—I dare not set it up right now as I've been on Wikipedia way too much today. I'll do so sometime soon and let you know; after reading your rationale I would agree that #3 seems ideal. Aza24 (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:ByteDance on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elon Musk on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced comment
FixedYou've placed Special:Diff/1022345496 on the page for the original nomination, 3 April, however the discussion has been relisted twice since then and is now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#MOS:Naming convention. I've not moved your comment but you will want to if you want the closer to see it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Oh! Right. Thanks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 43
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
- New Library Card designs
- 1Lib1Ref May
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
WT:WikiProject English Language
FixedWhere are you archiving the threads you removed here? (The user you pinged there is indef-blocked btw.) Nardog (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- To /Archive_1; I forgot to put a
{{Archive box}}on it. Will go fix that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
And I hadn't yet actually saved the archive page; done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC) - @Nardog: PS: Yes, I have a script that shows me whether a user is blocked. But the thread/proposal is still reasonable and deserved being addressed. It's probably cleanup I'll do myself, at least as to normalizing the examples. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
About FS
I was the one who speculated [32] that FS wanted to be banned from the project. The reason I state this is two fold; (1) It is clear from a long contribution history that FS is very far removed from being an idiot; FS knows full well what they have done and (2) the continued patterns of abusive, edit warring behavior despite umpteen warnings. The two points can not be reconciled except to conclude that FS wants to be banned from the project. I don't think a topic ban is warranted or workable. The reasons for that are that their abuse has continued for many years, and has gone on despite many, many blocks regarding the same sort of behavior. Where FS works on the project is not going to change the behavior. The behavior hasn't changed, despite many blocks, many warnings, and years of effort by others. To topic ban FS is only to move the problem from one part of the project to another. I'm not suggesting or asking you to amend your comment at the AN/I thread, but rather to offer some insight on why a topic ban would almost certainly fail. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft: Your prediction would quite possibly bear out, but I like to "make the try". It's been my experience that when you remove editors from topics in which they are problematic, they sometimes become less problematic. Maybe it's only a 20% chance or something, but it's still a chance. That said, I'm not going to pitch a fit if the ban is enacted. FS has been a thorn in my side (for unclear reasons) since sometime around 2008; my best guess is it's a grudge about an argument we got into over the draft of what eventually became WP:NBOOK. Whatever it was, I've been on his perpetual shitlist for over a decade, and am rather tired of his "SMcCandlish said something, so oppose it reflexively and rudely regardless what it actually says" behavior. My skin's thick, though, so I've never treated this as block/ban-worthy. If he's habitually this sort of aggressive and anticollaborative to many, many editors (as more and more seems the case), then I can see the case for a ban. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, that's very much his habit. From the time I've spent investigating this, I've seen a fair bit to support that position and nothing that disagrees with it. It's the outright abuse of fellow editors that greatly concerns me, and the reality that it's been going on for years, with many blocks having no impact. FS is knowledgeable, but the cost is having an editor who is incapable of editing in a collaborative environment. Some people just can't do it. I'm sure some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen were incapable of working in a collaborative environment. Being brilliant doesn't mean one is collaborative, nor vice versa. Its the lack of collaborative ability and inability to amend his behavior that precludes his ability to be on the project. Anyway, that's where I stand. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. A community ban is a serious thing. I'm open to alternatives, but even your own comments above lend fuel to the community ban rather than increase my confidence that another option would work. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- From what I see, a topic ban - meaning exclusion from the topics FS is good at - would not work. What - as far as I can see - might work is an interaction ban with everybody else. I have tried, really. How about FS may write his own articles, but never revert in article space (only suggest reverts), never make comments longer than 250 chars each (it's stealing our time having to reading all that), and never make more than two comments in a given discussion. I invented the latter restriction, they (the arbs) turned it against me, and I found it a blessing: make your point, then go away and do something useful. I won't comment on ANI but feel the way FS has treated Mathsci, me, Nikkimaria and Aza24, and all this recently,
needswould be good to stop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)- Seems to be a done deal now, so such ideas are kind of moot at this point. I agree that the uncollaborative behavior needed to stop, and it has been ongoing for a very long time. So, as with JLAN below, I think the indef was the correct call. My "what about a T-ban?" point was assuming that a good unblock request would be written after a while showing actual learning from the blocks for a change. It was all a long-shot really, so I'm not surprized at the C-ban outcome. An alternative that presented another chance was probably something for a year or two ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, SMcCandlish! Just wanted to thank you for raising at least the possibility of an alternative solution in that discussion. I went to it with that intention, but found the consensus and the feelings so strong that it didn't seem appropriate to dissent; I'm glad that you tried at least. Note: I've nothing but admiration for the way the indef block was handled, correct in every way. This is just a note of thanks, no reply needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't like us to completely lose any productive editor, even if they're only sometimes productive. >;-) I took the same approach with a certain years-running disrupter (along nationalistic lines) of MoS, RM, AT, etc. I urged against a block and supported a T-ban; then against an indef after a block was imposed along with a T-ban and the block ran out but wasn't learned from; then in favor of reinstatement as long as the T-ban and a later I-ban remained in place. I.e., compartmentalize the editor away from trouble areas. But it didn't go that way in that case either. [sigh] User remains indeffed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- From what I see, a topic ban - meaning exclusion from the topics FS is good at - would not work. What - as far as I can see - might work is an interaction ban with everybody else. I have tried, really. How about FS may write his own articles, but never revert in article space (only suggest reverts), never make comments longer than 250 chars each (it's stealing our time having to reading all that), and never make more than two comments in a given discussion. I invented the latter restriction, they (the arbs) turned it against me, and I found it a blessing: make your point, then go away and do something useful. I won't comment on ANI but feel the way FS has treated Mathsci, me, Nikkimaria and Aza24, and all this recently,
- From what I can tell, that's very much his habit. From the time I've spent investigating this, I've seen a fair bit to support that position and nothing that disagrees with it. It's the outright abuse of fellow editors that greatly concerns me, and the reality that it's been going on for years, with many blocks having no impact. FS is knowledgeable, but the cost is having an editor who is incapable of editing in a collaborative environment. Some people just can't do it. I'm sure some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen were incapable of working in a collaborative environment. Being brilliant doesn't mean one is collaborative, nor vice versa. Its the lack of collaborative ability and inability to amend his behavior that precludes his ability to be on the project. Anyway, that's where I stand. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. A community ban is a serious thing. I'm open to alternatives, but even your own comments above lend fuel to the community ban rather than increase my confidence that another option would work. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 |
- Yes, agree, and didn't support a ban. His Brandenburg Concerto is sooo much better than them all. - Thank you for improving articles in May, and for improving editor interactions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Commonwealth English
Template:Commonwealth English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, Mr McCandlish, don't take my nomination of this template for deletion as opposition to your goal of reducing the number of these templates overall. I'm currently working on a plan of action to effect precisely that goal. However, I don't believe that this template is the way to do it, for a number of reasons as expressed in the deletion nomination. I hope we can work collaboratively to rid ourselves of this sort of nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: The deletion discussion is largely boneheaded. People are mistaking a template about English as typically written in an encyclopedic register in most Commonwealth countries (generally indistinguishable from British English at the same formality level) for a template about an alleged dialect called "Commonwealth English". It's a clueless trainwreck. But it's a lost cause at this point. I hope whatever your plan is, it works out better. The real problem here isn't just a profusion of templates, per se, but a two-fold issue of A) nationalistic editors using such templates as minor WP:OWN/WP:VESTED bludgeons and yet another thing to battleground about; and B) too many of the language templates being huge obnoxious WP:BITEy banners that are at the top of the talk page or, much worse, abused as editnotices, so people get to be browbeaten with them again and again and again. All of them should be reduced to the top-of-the-wikicode silent templates that do not display anything to readers or, other than that one line in the source, to editors. And all those (whatever their output formatting) for spoken dialects that either do not have a formal written register (Barbadian, etc.), or varieties which do have one, but one that is effectively the same as British, should be deleted. It's not so much the number of templates, but the number of pointless and misleading ones, which are put to unhelpful uses and purposes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you entirely, and I have actually been working toward the deletion of a number of these templates. A few have been successfully removed. Where I do not agree, however, is that 'English as typically written in an encyclopaedic register in most Commonwealth countries' is a monolithic entity that can be reified in the manner done by this template. I think it was clear in my nomination that I was not referring to 'dialect', but to a a Commonwealth 'written standard of English', which unfortunately, as far as can be gleaned from RS, does not exist. I would argue that this endeavour to conjure up a purported 'Commonwealth English' is in fact an attempt to appease certain types of editors who cannot accept the idea of a 'British English' template being applied to articles about countries other than Britain, and therefore it simply reproduces the exact sort of disruptive logic that has created most of these templates in the first place. Instead of engaging in that behaviour, I think we should establish a clear criteria for what a 'variant' is, based on RS, and implement the subsequent categorisation on that basis. That is to says, in an ideal world, we would identify the few reasonable variants (and, frankly, the word 'variant' should be replaced with 'written standard') that actually exist, i.e. British, British with Oxford spelling, American, and Canadian, and apply the relevant templates without concern for nationalist ideas about language. That's what I am trying to do now, but it will undoubtedly be a long and hard process. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- A Commonwealth "written standard" of English does exist, in the form of the Oxford (especially) and Cambridge (mostly for learners not professionals) style guides, which are used in most Commonwealth countries, except Australia and Canada which have developed multiple reputably published style guides of their own (and which consequently have more divergent writing). There is no Indian or South African or Jamican or Hong Kong or Belizean edition or rough equivalent of New Hart's Rules and Fowler's Modern English. People in these countries rely on the British editions (which may even be printed locally, especially for India; OUP doesn't like to ship books across oceans if it doesn't have to). This is one of the reasons that Commonwealth English as a general pattern of writing exists. People in these countries are neither using American style guides like Chicago, nor writing their own (except as self-published dreck). It's telling that Cambridge Guide to Australian English Usage is actually just a copy of the British Cambridge Guide to English Usage, word for word, page by page, except tweaked in a handful of places for Australian norms. Even when Australians have their own style guides, they still buy and follow British ones as long as the publisher throws them a bone. There are very few giveaways, aside from informal vocabulary, that a writer is Australian or NZ rather than British (TV program without -me is one of the only obvious ones).
But we absolutely should not, as Wikipedia, refer to such things as "written standards". That's not what they are. Every style guide is just the opinion, the prescriptive advocacy, of its writers and publishers. Chicago and Garner's are not "standards" either. To the extent any standards in English can be said to exist, they exist in aggregate behavior, which can only be gleaned through a combination of observation of contemporary usage, and all the major style guides for that variety of English examined in the aggregate and their conflicts normalized away (again by analysis of actual usage). And that's not really what "standard" means, much less "written standard". One of the reasons as a certain rather nationalistic editor got topic-banned from MoS then eventually indeffed from the project was an insistence on falsely treating off-site style guides as "written standards" and trying to impose them on material here. Please don't go down that path!
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC) - Forgot to ping: RGloucester. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Those are not 'Commonwealth' written standards, but British ones. If the Commonwealth includes Canada, for instance, then clearly one cannot say that those style guides are equivalent to a 'Commonwealth' standard, and I've seen no evidence of any reliable sources referring to them as such. Moreover, there are countries that are not in the Commonwealth that use those very standards, such as Ireland. Again, I am perfectly aware that many countries follow the British standards, and indeed, many other countries follow the American ones. I simply disagree with labelling the British standard as 'Commonwealth', because again, this is not representative of actual reality, and no on reliable sources classify it as such.
- As for 'written standards', I take that as meaning to refer to spelling specifically, rather than styling. We don't have ENGVAR for typography or vocabulary on Wikipedia...we have universal styling as found in the MoS, and COMMONALITY proscribing the use of dialectal terminology. The point of moving away from the 'variant' terminology is to prevent the repeated misconstruction of TIES and ENGVAR as allowing for the writing of the encyclopaedia in 'dialect', which of course is something we should not and do not do. But, perhaps there is a better phrasing than 'written standard'. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Not sure why we're having communication difficulties about this. To the extent such manuals and the English-writing results they produce could be called "standards" at all – a WP:OR position one must be very careful with – the simple fact that the British-published manuals are used almost universally Commonwealth-wide (except in .ca and .au, mostly, though they do sell in those countries as well, since they cover much else besides spelling) makes them in practice a de facto Commonwealth English standard. I think you're commingling the ideas of a standard-in-practice and an official standard, and also commingling the notion of place of origin and geographical range of use/impact. By way of analogy, The Lord of the Rings and related stories are British fiction originally published in the UK, but Tolkien fandom (the use/application/effect/impact) is not a British phenomenon.
Moving on (and I'm sorry this is sounding like "let's get in an argument" mode), your distinction between "spelling specifically" and "styling ... typography or vocabulary" is illusory and actually incorrect. Spelling is a subset of style (as are typography, many vocabulary choices, punctuation, and much else). ENGVAR does in fact cover vocabulary; it is not permissible to go around changing British automobile articles to use "trunk" and "hood" and "curb" instead of "boot" and "bonnet" and "kerb", as just one example. ENGVAR also covers other matters in limited ways (e.g., punctuation: British English typically does not end an abbrevaition with "." if the abbreviation is a contraction that begins and ends with the same pair of letters as the full word, thus "Dr Marten's" and "St John", but "Prof. Tolkien"; and grammar, including inflectional morphology, such that whilst is permissible in British, Irish, and Commonwealth English generally, but is not used in North American English, where it becomes while). But ENGVAR is not tied only (just primarily) to nationality; e.g., Oxford spelling (colour and programme but realize) is permissible and is among the "declarable" ENGVARs, as you seem to already be aware. We also have IUPAC spelling (and templates for it, which cross national lines). I know you mean well, but I think your absorption of some of the principles involved is a bit incomplete.
"No reliable sources" is a very bold statement. It is trivially easy to find source material, including dictionaries, journal articles, etc. that treat Commonwealth English "as a thing", just by spending a few seconds on Google [33][34][35][36]. And then there are all the works addressing Global[ised] or World English as a metadialect (generally based on British and effectively synonymous with Commonwealth English). [37][38] Have you ever read any of this material? I have. It's not like I made up from my own imagination that British-published style guides dominate the global market for writing manuals in English, and that they have a palapable effect on written English globally. But resort to sourcing is not actually necessary here; WP internal terms for things are a matter of editorial consensus and are not part of the encyclopedia content. It's preferectly fine for us to use a descriptive term like "Commonwealth English" as a categorization label for our own purposes. (And it's also fine for editors like yourself to propose using something else.)
"But, perhaps there is a better phrasing than 'written standard'." Surely, though exactly what to use would depend on the sentence. What we're really trying to get at here is distinguishable varieties of written English in an encyclopedic register, which differ programmatically enough that we need to annotate that the article uses one or other to prevent editwarring over style. That basically boils down British/Commonwealth (which really also includes Irish, but we'd have to separate it for political reasons), American, Canadian, and Australian/NZ. After a lifetime of collecting style guides, I can tell you firmly that other dialects are spoken and informal-writing varieties, and do not have reputably published style guides of their own. That's the sourcing that matters. There is no evidence whatsoever that something like Trindadian or Zimbabwean or Singaporean English exist as distinguishable dialects in a formal register; when writing formally, speakers of those dialects code-switch to Commonwealth/British. Even formal Indian English is effectively identical to British, other than some use of krore numerics. (While that's a style matter we cover in MOS:NUM, it's really much more akin to US/Imperial vs. metric measurments and other maths-related handling than it is to dialect per se.) Is it worth having a "use Indian English" template? Yes and no. Because krore counting is permissible in articles that pertain to the Indian subcontinent (as long as regular base-10 units are also provided), we have an editorial reason to mark articles in which that numeric style is appropriate (otherwise editors are apt to edit-war to remove and, and we know that from actual practice not from supposition). But "Indian" is unnecessarily, potentially disruptively, nationalistic. We should instead have an Indic English or South Asian English template that also included Pakistan and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and such. (That would be preferable to a profusion of templates for each country, those redirs should probably exist for "use Pakistani English", etc.). It's the same problem as labeling Irish a subset of British/Commonwealth (and Rep. of Ireland is not a Commonwealth member), except we don't seem to have a useable blanket term for "British + Irish" the way we do with Indic/South Asian.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Not sure why we're having communication difficulties about this. To the extent such manuals and the English-writing results they produce could be called "standards" at all – a WP:OR position one must be very careful with – the simple fact that the British-published manuals are used almost universally Commonwealth-wide (except in .ca and .au, mostly, though they do sell in those countries as well, since they cover much else besides spelling) makes them in practice a de facto Commonwealth English standard. I think you're commingling the ideas of a standard-in-practice and an official standard, and also commingling the notion of place of origin and geographical range of use/impact. By way of analogy, The Lord of the Rings and related stories are British fiction originally published in the UK, but Tolkien fandom (the use/application/effect/impact) is not a British phenomenon.
- A Commonwealth "written standard" of English does exist, in the form of the Oxford (especially) and Cambridge (mostly for learners not professionals) style guides, which are used in most Commonwealth countries, except Australia and Canada which have developed multiple reputably published style guides of their own (and which consequently have more divergent writing). There is no Indian or South African or Jamican or Hong Kong or Belizean edition or rough equivalent of New Hart's Rules and Fowler's Modern English. People in these countries rely on the British editions (which may even be printed locally, especially for India; OUP doesn't like to ship books across oceans if it doesn't have to). This is one of the reasons that Commonwealth English as a general pattern of writing exists. People in these countries are neither using American style guides like Chicago, nor writing their own (except as self-published dreck). It's telling that Cambridge Guide to Australian English Usage is actually just a copy of the British Cambridge Guide to English Usage, word for word, page by page, except tweaked in a handful of places for Australian norms. Even when Australians have their own style guides, they still buy and follow British ones as long as the publisher throws them a bone. There are very few giveaways, aside from informal vocabulary, that a writer is Australian or NZ rather than British (TV program without -me is one of the only obvious ones).
- I agree with you entirely, and I have actually been working toward the deletion of a number of these templates. A few have been successfully removed. Where I do not agree, however, is that 'English as typically written in an encyclopaedic register in most Commonwealth countries' is a monolithic entity that can be reified in the manner done by this template. I think it was clear in my nomination that I was not referring to 'dialect', but to a a Commonwealth 'written standard of English', which unfortunately, as far as can be gleaned from RS, does not exist. I would argue that this endeavour to conjure up a purported 'Commonwealth English' is in fact an attempt to appease certain types of editors who cannot accept the idea of a 'British English' template being applied to articles about countries other than Britain, and therefore it simply reproduces the exact sort of disruptive logic that has created most of these templates in the first place. Instead of engaging in that behaviour, I think we should establish a clear criteria for what a 'variant' is, based on RS, and implement the subsequent categorisation on that basis. That is to says, in an ideal world, we would identify the few reasonable variants (and, frankly, the word 'variant' should be replaced with 'written standard') that actually exist, i.e. British, British with Oxford spelling, American, and Canadian, and apply the relevant templates without concern for nationalist ideas about language. That's what I am trying to do now, but it will undoubtedly be a long and hard process. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: The deletion discussion is largely boneheaded. People are mistaking a template about English as typically written in an encyclopedic register in most Commonwealth countries (generally indistinguishable from British English at the same formality level) for a template about an alleged dialect called "Commonwealth English". It's a clueless trainwreck. But it's a lost cause at this point. I hope whatever your plan is, it works out better. The real problem here isn't just a profusion of templates, per se, but a two-fold issue of A) nationalistic editors using such templates as minor WP:OWN/WP:VESTED bludgeons and yet another thing to battleground about; and B) too many of the language templates being huge obnoxious WP:BITEy banners that are at the top of the talk page or, much worse, abused as editnotices, so people get to be browbeaten with them again and again and again. All of them should be reduced to the top-of-the-wikicode silent templates that do not display anything to readers or, other than that one line in the source, to editors. And all those (whatever their output formatting) for spoken dialects that either do not have a formal written register (Barbadian, etc.), or varieties which do have one, but one that is effectively the same as British, should be deleted. It's not so much the number of templates, but the number of pointless and misleading ones, which are put to unhelpful uses and purposes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, Mr McCandlish, don't take my nomination of this template for deletion as opposition to your goal of reducing the number of these templates overall. I'm currently working on a plan of action to effect precisely that goal. However, I don't believe that this template is the way to do it, for a number of reasons as expressed in the deletion nomination. I hope we can work collaboratively to rid ourselves of this sort of nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Self-referential humor on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Senedd on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Sister Project Boxes and MOS Conflict
Resolved- Copied from Wikipedia:Help desk#Sister Project Boxes and MOS Conflict
Hi! The MOS Seems to contradict in an area and I could use some clarification.
MOS:SO states that Internal links to related English Wikipedia articles, with section heading "See also"; link templates for sister-project content also usually go at the top of this section when it is present (otherwise in the last section on the page).
This is in apparent contradiction to MOS:ELLAYOUT, which states that Links to Wikimedia sister projects and Spoken Wikipedia should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also". If the article has no "External links" section, then place sister links at the top of the last section in the article. Two exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource links may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).
So, which is it? Should I put sister project boxes in External links or See also? Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Tyrone Madera, I have checked the history of the passages you quote, now highlighted in green, and the more recent is MOS:SO, which was updated in the Revision to Wikipedia:Manual of Style as of 10:06, 23 November 2020 by SMcCandlish. SMcCandlish please could you resolve the inconsistency between MOS:SO and MOS:ELLAYOUT? TSventon (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, Tyrone Madera, this has now been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Sister Project Boxes and MOS Conflict, so it probably makes sense to respond there if you wish. TSventon (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Azov Battalion on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
technical question about RFCs
Maybe you are a good person to ask, how do you stop bots "expiring" on-going RFCs after 30 days?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrew Lancaster: Not sure you can. I think you just have to put another RfC tag on it, if it needs to continue longer. (And figure out what the original numeric ID was and keep that one around as an anchor for incoming links). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: hopefully what Carlstak did is good enough, or should we do more? OTOH, I can't really understand your posts on that RFC, and I beg you to spend a few more minutes on this, so we can try to get some clarity. (1) You are responding to an RFC which is a draft proposal, and saying there should be a draft proposal. (2) You are saying that you judge that the proposal has been criticized, but actually I am struggling to get other editors such as yourself to give any feedback at all, presumably because they are (understandably) sick of it. So put simply, if this situation is ever going to change, the article really needs there to be feedback on this RFC - including indeed negative feedback. If there would be clear negative feedback on the draft, THEN indeed we should look forward to an improved draft based on that feedback. But that is not the situation.
- (FWIW The only negative feedback so far was effectively a statement of minority disagreement with the findings of the previous RFCs which led to this one. Berig and Krakkos would prefer no reduction of the 3 controversial sections about pre 3rd century Goths. Note the wording of Krakkos in the RFC he previously started:
"it is obvious that there is a clear consensus among editors that the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections are too long and complicated, too reliant and focused on Jordanes and his Getica, and that they should be give more emphasis on the analysis of archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence by modern scholars."
And the closing said"there is a clear consensus to substantially trim these sections. The specific text proposed, however, has drawn significant objections and a consensus to implement it as-is is not apparent in this discussion."
) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
A request @ WP:ANI
ResolvedGreetings,
One of previous non Admin discussion closure from your side has been discussed @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A request
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:The duck test on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ilhan Omar on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Catholic bishops in the Philippines on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of The Decapitones for deletion
DisregardA discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Decapitones, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Decapitones until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Editing news 2021 #2
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
- Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
- The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.
You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
MOS image issue
MOS:LEADIMAGE says a lead/infobox image often has "a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." I have always interpreted that to mean a bio should include a image of the person and not something they created. If I find an article with a building/painting in the infobox for an architect/artist, I will move it out of the infobox. It is even rarer to find image of person in an infobox for a work of art (book/film/TV show/sculpture, etc). These are normally illustrated with an image of a book cover (not author), movie poster (not lead actor or director), logo or title card, artwork itself (not artist), etc. I recently found a series of operas with an image of the composer in the infobox and removed them all. This was reverted, and the ensuing discussion indicates members of WP:OPERA say this is normal to use a photo of the composer. Discussion started on my TP, then continued at the Opera project TP. I tried to get MOS input from editors who might not think operas should be any different than other works of art, but no comments there. Suggestions on where to go next? MB 03:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- @MB: People are going to fight about this, either way. If we have no image of the person it will be argued that an image of the work is better than nothing. In many cases that will be objectively correct because the article is where the work title redirects to (i.e., it's the article on both the author and the work). In a case like Thomas Malory and Le Morte d'Arthur, it's a weaker sell to use an image from the book at the author page (aside from the fact that the image at the latter, in this specific case, is worse than useless, as I've addressed on the book's talk page). Overall I lean toward your view, but am not sure I would want to fight about it. And people in the opera and classics areas are certainly willing to fight to the wiki-death about "their" topics; total F'ing drama factory. Where to go next? I would say to centralize discussion at WT:MOSIMAGES (consider working up an RfC on it), and make it generalized without focusing on opera in particular, or all that does is encourage an already-entrenched WP:CAMP to dig deeper trenches, since they'll feel singled-out and besieged. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- There was no response to my first attempt to raise this at WP:MOSIMAGES. A proposed change to the MOS will probably elicit comments. Before I go there, can you take a look at my first pass. I added the two new sections in green. MB 02:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- @MB: Seems reasonable. The first three sentences of the third bullet have some grammar and logic problems (and the second is missing a key point about books that people will fight about if we're not specific). Try: "Lead images for works of art should be of the sort the most commonly used as illustrations for that type of work. As some examples, articles on books are most commonly illustrated with images of first-edition book covers; plays, movies, and TV shows are commonly illustrated with posters or title cards." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've incorporated your changes and posted it at WT:MOSIMAGES. I'm not sure why you think a book image should be of the first-edition. What if a book is a surprise hit, and is re-issued as a second edition with a new cover, and this edition outsells the first by 10 or 20 times. Wouldn't the second edition be more representative. Anyway, it is in the proposal and I will leave it to you to defend that part if anyone objects. On the opera front, another editor independently ran across the articles with the composer's photo and removed them again, just as I did; they were reverted too (per opera project consensus).
- I don't think it should be the first edition; the community does, or at least the loudest segement of the community to comment on the matter consistently does. People have fought like hell about this for years (and with real reasons for wanting to use another, e.g. for The Children of the Sea, given its unsavoury original title. The opera wikiproject needs to be reminded the ArbCom cases that have gone against them and of WP:CONLEVEL policy, which was written primarily to stop the opera and classical music wikiprojects from acting like they WP:OWN those topics. Seriously, no other topical segment has been more of an OWN problem that those (and their something-like-a-ringleader was recently community banned, for years of OWNish and hostile behavior). They're also the epicenter of "the infobox wars" and way, way too much other WP:DRAMA. They are basically on notice that the community is tired of their bullshit, and I have little doubt that ArbCom would accept another case about that behavior, especially if there's any element of WP:GANG to it. There is no such thing as a "wikiproject consensus" that can force particular topics of articles, or particular individual articles, to be laid out a certain way or to contain or not contain certain elements, and they damned well know this. Yet here they are making this tired fucking argument again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- OK on the book cover, I was unaware there was history about this. I had picked up on opera project. I'll certainly remove those images again if/when we get this into the MOS. Are you going to comment at the discussion? There is one AGAINST the change so far. I was hoping to get some preliminary support there before starting a formal RFC. MB 06:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @MB: Which thread[s] in particular? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- OK on the book cover, I was unaware there was history about this. I had picked up on opera project. I'll certainly remove those images again if/when we get this into the MOS. Are you going to comment at the discussion? There is one AGAINST the change so far. I was hoping to get some preliminary support there before starting a formal RFC. MB 06:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be the first edition; the community does, or at least the loudest segement of the community to comment on the matter consistently does. People have fought like hell about this for years (and with real reasons for wanting to use another, e.g. for The Children of the Sea, given its unsavoury original title. The opera wikiproject needs to be reminded the ArbCom cases that have gone against them and of WP:CONLEVEL policy, which was written primarily to stop the opera and classical music wikiprojects from acting like they WP:OWN those topics. Seriously, no other topical segment has been more of an OWN problem that those (and their something-like-a-ringleader was recently community banned, for years of OWNish and hostile behavior). They're also the epicenter of "the infobox wars" and way, way too much other WP:DRAMA. They are basically on notice that the community is tired of their bullshit, and I have little doubt that ArbCom would accept another case about that behavior, especially if there's any element of WP:GANG to it. There is no such thing as a "wikiproject consensus" that can force particular topics of articles, or particular individual articles, to be laid out a certain way or to contain or not contain certain elements, and they damned well know this. Yet here they are making this tired fucking argument again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've incorporated your changes and posted it at WT:MOSIMAGES. I'm not sure why you think a book image should be of the first-edition. What if a book is a surprise hit, and is re-issued as a second edition with a new cover, and this edition outsells the first by 10 or 20 times. Wouldn't the second edition be more representative. Anyway, it is in the proposal and I will leave it to you to defend that part if anyone objects. On the opera front, another editor independently ran across the articles with the composer's photo and removed them again, just as I did; they were reverted too (per opera project consensus).
- @MB: Seems reasonable. The first three sentences of the third bullet have some grammar and logic problems (and the second is missing a key point about books that people will fight about if we're not specific). Try: "Lead images for works of art should be of the sort the most commonly used as illustrations for that type of work. As some examples, articles on books are most commonly illustrated with images of first-edition book covers; plays, movies, and TV shows are commonly illustrated with posters or title cards." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- There was no response to my first attempt to raise this at WP:MOSIMAGES. A proposed change to the MOS will probably elicit comments. Before I go there, can you take a look at my first pass. I added the two new sections in green. MB 02:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hudson Square on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Green-Wood Cemetery on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Disregard
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Film and game ratings on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of The Loud House characters on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Royal Navy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Memory problems ;-)
I believe this is the second time I've told you what WP:PROPOSAL says about the location of guideline promotion discussions just this month. I'm almost tempted to propose a change the long-standing wording in that policy from "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page" to "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page and definitely not on any of the Village pumps or any other page, no matter what SMcCandlish tells you". Please try to remember this time so I don't have to go to that much work, 'kay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- If that page's wording has come to conflict with the existence and purpose of WP:VPPRO, then either that wording needs to change, or VPPRO needs to be MfD'ed for closure as {{Historical}}. This is a WP:PROCESSFORK, and not an error on my part. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: See also salient part of 2015 close here (second half of last paragraph): "
One may also argue that this needs a broader discussion/forum than this particular one; frankly I am surprised that relatively few people commented, but the lack of popularity of these pages was hinted at elsewhere on the talk page.
" This is not a new problem, and its entire and obvious solution is centralizing discussions that have potential site-wide impact, instead of continuing to sideline them on talk pages only 10 people read and without any further "advertising". WP:VPPRO exists for this very purpose, when it comes to guideline/policy proposals, though an alternative is (as I said, and as I did) posting notice there rather than hosting the discussion there. If you think I'm going to stop posting policy/guideline proposal notices to VPPRO, and policy/guideline wording or interpretation change discussion notices to VPPOL, where they belong, and suggesting – when I think it's in the project's best actual interests – that a particular proposal would be better hosted directly at Village Pump, then you are entirely mistaken. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)- I hope that nobody actually made a WP:PROPOSAL that Template:Navbox be declared an official Wikipedia guideline. Did they? Or is that an irrelevant example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note that my problem is with you telling people that if they want to a page to be tagged as a guideline or policy, then they need to have the RFC discussion itself at VPPR. I've got no problems with you pointing any/all relevant pages to such a discussion; the problem is with you saying "The discussion really belongs here" when the discussion is already in the correct place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- You're just repeating yourself, without taking into account any of the above. I won't repeat myself. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do we agree on the following facts?
- You believe proposals to tag something as a guideline should ideally be made at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (with a note on the affected page's talk page).
- The very first words at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) say "The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines..."
- The Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines policy says the correct procedure is to "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page" (i.e., not at any of the village pumps).
- Is that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- More or less. This is why I observe there's a WP:PROCESSFORK. The instructions of VPPOL and in that paragraph at WP:POL can't both be correct (at least not without clarification that either option is viable, or whatever). Statistically speaking, we know from long experience that hosting a guideline proposal at the talk page of the material attracts very little input but from the page's extant regulars and does not produce a very solid consensus, but rather a local one that is apt to be challenged later (or the alleged guideline widely ignored and eventually demoted again), while using VPPOL attracts a more diverse and larger set of editors and produces a stronger consensus. This effect can sometimes be somewhat approximated by "advertising" the proposal, if hosted at the material's own talk page, via VPPOL and WP:CENT. However, this still vote-stacks in favor of the proposal by regulars at that page, and the entire point of our P&G pages is that they are site-wide consensus not a local consensus, so there really is no up-side to hosting the proposal discussion at the material's own talk page. I don't feel that way about change discussions (rewriting a section, deleting a passage, adding a new line-item, etc.); VPPOL should not drown in comparatively minor change proposals. However, any such change discussion that is likely to affect a large number of articles should be the subject of a pointer notice at VPPOL. PS: I think I was mixing up VPPOL and VPPRO, if that's what you're getting at; VPPRO seems more for non-policy proposals (and non-technical ones, since VPTECH exists for those). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- WP:VPPOL and WP:POL don't conflict if you interpret VPPOL as being for "discussing" a page but not for "holding the actual promotion RFC" (i.e., anything except the official RFC can happen at VPPOL, including discussions about whether to have that RFC, what it should say, whether it's started, how it's going, etc.).
- WP:POL lists a lot of options for advertising those RFCs, beginning with both VPPOL "and/or" VPPRO. We are not having problems getting people to show up for RFCs about policy changes these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is no reason to reach for an interpretation that RfC discussions are somehow not "discussions" to have at VPPOL (which in fact hosts many policy/guideline RfCs) when we know we get better results hosting the RfC discussions there. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you about turnout; I spend an unusual amount of time in policy discussions compared to other Wikipedians and trust my own judgment on this. Also, the entire WP:PROPOSAL section you're relying on begins with "One path for proposals is ...", so it is not exclusive or dispositive to begin with, only an example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 04:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think you do? There are four "policy" RFCs open at the moment: 1, 2, 3, 4. I don't happen to remember seeing your name in any of them, but perhaps I just missed it. Even the least attended (a quite specialized subject) already has comments from eight editors, and some have dozens of editors commenting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Dwelling on my lack of participation right this second when I'm pretty obviously on a near-total wikibreak and barely checking in, versus 15+ years of my history here, is indicative of nothing other than this conversation has no productive purpose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think you do? There are four "policy" RFCs open at the moment: 1, 2, 3, 4. I don't happen to remember seeing your name in any of them, but perhaps I just missed it. Even the least attended (a quite specialized subject) already has comments from eight editors, and some have dozens of editors commenting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is no reason to reach for an interpretation that RfC discussions are somehow not "discussions" to have at VPPOL (which in fact hosts many policy/guideline RfCs) when we know we get better results hosting the RfC discussions there. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you about turnout; I spend an unusual amount of time in policy discussions compared to other Wikipedians and trust my own judgment on this. Also, the entire WP:PROPOSAL section you're relying on begins with "One path for proposals is ...", so it is not exclusive or dispositive to begin with, only an example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 04:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- More or less. This is why I observe there's a WP:PROCESSFORK. The instructions of VPPOL and in that paragraph at WP:POL can't both be correct (at least not without clarification that either option is viable, or whatever). Statistically speaking, we know from long experience that hosting a guideline proposal at the talk page of the material attracts very little input but from the page's extant regulars and does not produce a very solid consensus, but rather a local one that is apt to be challenged later (or the alleged guideline widely ignored and eventually demoted again), while using VPPOL attracts a more diverse and larger set of editors and produces a stronger consensus. This effect can sometimes be somewhat approximated by "advertising" the proposal, if hosted at the material's own talk page, via VPPOL and WP:CENT. However, this still vote-stacks in favor of the proposal by regulars at that page, and the entire point of our P&G pages is that they are site-wide consensus not a local consensus, so there really is no up-side to hosting the proposal discussion at the material's own talk page. I don't feel that way about change discussions (rewriting a section, deleting a passage, adding a new line-item, etc.); VPPOL should not drown in comparatively minor change proposals. However, any such change discussion that is likely to affect a large number of articles should be the subject of a pointer notice at VPPOL. PS: I think I was mixing up VPPOL and VPPRO, if that's what you're getting at; VPPRO seems more for non-policy proposals (and non-technical ones, since VPTECH exists for those). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do we agree on the following facts?
- You're just repeating yourself, without taking into account any of the above. I won't repeat myself. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note that my problem is with you telling people that if they want to a page to be tagged as a guideline or policy, then they need to have the RFC discussion itself at VPPR. I've got no problems with you pointing any/all relevant pages to such a discussion; the problem is with you saying "The discussion really belongs here" when the discussion is already in the correct place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- I hope that nobody actually made a WP:PROPOSAL that Template:Navbox be declared an official Wikipedia guideline. Did they? Or is that an irrelevant example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Addition of service award template request
Hey man. I was looking at the service awards and noticed that for Journeyman Editor, there is a grognard template with a little red book. I was looking online about little red book and found out that it is related to Mao and communist China. Given that many people are not fans of Mao nor communism, I was wondering if you could add a template option, say for example, The Green Book of Wikipedia, in honor of environmentalism, without references to political or economic systems. --Thinker78 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lots of books have red covers. There's a difference between a little red book, and The Little Red Book. I don't personally have much interest in the specifics of those templates, and people have been prone to fight about them, WP:BIKESHED style. And environmentalism is just as much as socio-political viewpoint as communism (albeit on a different political axis), so your rationale isn't a neutrality improvement. I don't care if it gets changed, but I'm disinclined to make such a change myself. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Wall Street Journal on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
"Template:Other uses-section" listed at Redirects for discussion
DoneA discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Other uses-section. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Template:Other uses-section until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"Template:R from related concept" listed at Redirects for discussion
DoneA discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from related concept. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Template:R from related concept until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jan Żaryn on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Organizations with roster consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council has been nominated for listification
DoneCategory:Organizations with roster consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for merger of Template:GA pass
DoneTemplate:GA pass has been nominated for merging with Template:GA inline. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
RfC notice
DoneThis is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ricky Schroder on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 45
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Books & Bytes
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Team table player
DoneTemplate:Team table player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thankee. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Question by oblivious user
Hello, I recently started to fill some of the unassessed article on WikiProject Armenia, and I noticed that "redirect" isn't a recognised value for the "class" parameter. After a bit of looking around and asking random pedestrians I was given directions to you to ask for guidance. Is there a dedicated place to request such an addition? Or could you personally do this? Or is this value deprecated? Thank you in advance and have a nice day. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevo327: What you want is
{{WikiProject Armenia|class=Redir}}. However, I think most if not all of the wikiproject banners auto-detect redirects now, so this will be redundant. It should just show up as a class of "NA". If just using{{WikiProject Armenia}}does that, then there is no need to use{{WikiProject Armenia|class=Redir}}. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Naturopathy on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicki Minaj on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@Akhilkodali: Please do not send me any more private e-mail about this.
I have no control over what articles exist on this site. I'm not even an admin here, just a random schmoe.
If you want to pursue deletion, see WP:Deletion policy and WP:BEFORE. However, I can tell you there is no chance of this article being deleted, because Nithyananda is clearly notable, being the subject of extensive mainstream news coverage, both positive and negative.
About the best you can do is help ensure that Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is done with a neutral point of view and using only reliable sources. You can request unblocking, with the understanding that, per the conflict-of-interest policy, you and other official representatives of the subject are not to edit the page directly, but raise your concerns on the article's talk page.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
August thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in August! I try, today DYK for a GA by a banned user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Writing advice
Hi! Can I get your input on this? It feels very wrong to me, but ... well, in real life, if a native Japanese speaking client with poor English told me that "but" was wrong because the two clauses do not directly contradict each other, I would tell the person who talks to the client that the client's understanding of English is incorrect, but since it's their document they're free to do as they will; but no one "owns" Wikipedia, so it feels wrong to handle it like that in this case. If you disagree with me, I guess I'll just agree to disagree and quietly drop it, but if you agree that it looks wrong, what would you do about it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: Using but isn't strictly wrong, but is slightly informal. If there's going to be a dispute about it, consider replacement wording, such as:
Kingdom Hearts III is not intended to be the final game in the series; it is the final chapter of the "Dark Seeker/Xehanort" saga.
No conjunction needed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The New York Times on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox officeholder on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox Playboy Playmate on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:African American studies on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello SMcCandlish,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Avicenna on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
September thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in September, - a good harvest! On Peace Day, Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 46
Issue 46, July – August 2021
- Library design improvements deployed
- New collections available in English and German
- Wikimania presentation
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Re the RFC you contributed to in Assange talk
DoneHi - you recently contributed and voted in an RFC on the Julian Assange Talk page and showed some support for option F. Another editor has pointed to a difficulty with that wording which I have addressed with the following slightly altered version:
“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."
I would be very grateful if you could let me/us know if the changed wording meets your approval so I can substitute it for the existing F option. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Do me a favour...
and check out the main page talk. Then tell me if I'm crazy. Primergrey (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Talk:Main Page? Not sure what I'm looking for. None of the threads seem weird. I didn't see you on there except one comment, to change "wasn't" to "was not" (which is a good correction per MOS:CONTRACTION). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was taken care of, I guess. It had to do with ITN using the "historical present" tense and causing offence to both logic and literacy. It seems, for now anyway, that I'm not crazy. If this qualifies as pestering then I wholeheartedly apologize. Otherwise, have a great week. Primergrey (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not at all. I have infinite patience for style trivia. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was taken care of, I guess. It had to do with ITN using the "historical present" tense and causing offence to both logic and literacy. It seems, for now anyway, that I'm not crazy. If this qualifies as pestering then I wholeheartedly apologize. Otherwise, have a great week. Primergrey (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:AUKUS on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Apple cider vinegar on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
TikTok
Hi SMcCandlish. First, I really appreciate the level-headed consideration you've given to my proposed edits at Talk:ByteDance. (Not every editor is willing to give disclosed paid editors the time of day!) I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my colleague User:Bkenny44's recent proposal at Talk:TikTok#Re-arranging content to comply with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT. He and I think that the TikTok article would read much more cleanly if the lead/body balance were improved and the layout re-organized, but his post from Sep. 24 has yet to attract any attention from other editors. One thought was to start an RfC, similar to the one I started back in May, but maybe that's overkill? Thanks, JatBD (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)