User:Ned Scott

I'm not that active these days, but I'm still around. Feel free to send me an extra poke here or via e-mail for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
E-mail: Special:Emailuser/Ned Scott

I live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.

Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.

Useful links

List templates

Projects

Transwiki

Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki- An effort to help with the technical issues when reusing Wikipedia content.

User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.

Template:Export

Discussion tracking

Delsort

Delsort categories

RfC/General notice

XfDs

Other

Village pump sections
Policy post \| watch \| search To discuss existing and proposed policies	Technical post \| watch \| search To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports use MediaZilla	Proposals (persistent) post \| watch \| search To discuss new proposals that are not policy related. See also: perennial proposals.	Assistance post \| watch \| search To post requests for assistance not covered by the Help desk or the Reference desk	Miscellaneous post \| watch \| search To post messages that do not fit into any other category

RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media

Talk:List of common misconceptions

We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Liam Payne

Which of the following should be Liam Payne's infobox photo? Please rank in order of preference: --- 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kiss (band)

Based on the discussion above, should the band be counted as 'active' in the infobox when the digital avatars begin performances, or should they not to avoid confusion with readers? HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:One Direction

There are two questions:

Should One Direction be described in the past tense ("was", "were", rather than "is")
Should all members be listed as past members in the infobox or just Zayn Malik and Liam Payne?

Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Should MOS:LEADIMAGE include a subsection for selecting lead images in biographical articles (if there is more than one image of the subject)? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?

The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons.

An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row.

A: No sticky header, same style (2-line) header as before.
B: Full size (2-line) header with sticky enabled.
C: Narrow (1-line) header without sticky enabled.
D: Narrow header with sticky header that follows you around.
E: Same as D, but with padding at the top of each row.

Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles

Which romanization system do you think we should use for historical Korean topics, McCune–Reischauer (MR) or Revised Romanization of Korean (RR)? We currently use MR. seefooddiet (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

There are two common ways to link to a place name with an "A, B, C" format where the article is titled [[A, B]]. Both can be read as fair interpretations of the guidance to "link only the first unit".

Have the link span only the smallest unit, using piping if necessary
Buffalo, New York, United States
Have the displayed text match the title of the linked article
Buffalo, New York, United States

Which style(s) is/are acceptable? If both, is one preferable to the other?

Note: See previous discussion above and above. This is not a question about whether "New York" should be linked to New York (state) in this example; basically everyone agrees that it should not be. 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature

Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS? Previous discussions as per Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE. [1][2]. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

In Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used for restoration of adminship apply to:

Option 1: Only those former administrators desysopped for inactivity
Option 2: All former administrators

Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Should the following text -- or text to the same basic effect -- be added to Petition section, at the end of the main text, right before the field to start a new page (or elsewhere):

As with any petition, all that is wanted is signatures. Any editor may and should remove any material found on a petition page except for the nomination and signatures. Any exceptions should be discussed and agreed to on the talk page first.

Yes or no? Suggestions of changes to the text are of course invited. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

To anyone unfamiliar with this, admin recall is a new process that is exactly what it sounds like. Currently, there is a 30 day petition period: if 25 people sign it, the admin then needs to pass a new RfA within 30 days to keep the tools. Should we change the petition period?

Option A: Keep the petition period the same (30 days)
Option B: Change the petition period to 7 days
Option C: Some other time period (like 14 or 15 days?) that's longer than a week but shorter than a month.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate

RFCBEFORE. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly

WP:PANDORA has become a hotpoint of contention in RfD. Should it be removed, or rewritten? If it should be rewritten, what changes should be made, and what can be salvaged?

I'd like to open by directing everyone's attention to this essay I wrote: WP:BACKINBOX. It was written as a reply to anyone attempting to use WP:PANDORA in good faith, listing the many issues I and many others at RfD have with it. (This was, well, before I was told that doing this might be a good idea.)

Scrolling up here on the talk page, you'll also find reference to the fact that this essay, WP:COSTLY, did not originally contain WP:PANDORA-- it was added in 2019, without consensus, by user:The Man in Question, who... as of yet has still not appeared in the talk page to discuss it. It has since been treated as a guideline essay by many a user here in RfD, despite... well, the numerous problems the section has. You'll also find that a discussion on this topic already exists, having been opened back in 2019, with... no resolution. I'm going to go ahead and ping the ones who took part in that discussion, so they might give feedback for the newer one-- user:Thryduulf, user:Steel1943, user:Crouch, Swale, user:Rosguill, user:Tavix, user:Uanfala, user:Sonicwave32, user:Chris troutman, user:Nabla, user:FOARP, user:ComplexRational. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

WP:TPO details several instances of comments that are appropriate to remove from talk pages, such as vandalism, spam, gibberish, and test edits. Does this apply to archived talk pages as well? I will post a more detailed statement and further context in the replies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User sub-pages

User talk sub-pages