From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I am aware that in the interest of humility, many users choose not to write content for their user page, perhaps instead redirecting it to their user talk page. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed...

Conventions and etiquette[edit]

I will reply to a discussion where it was started. This means that I would prefer that you not use {{talkback}} unless the issue is urgent.

If you wish to revert my edit, please do not remove the default "Undid revision ###..." text entirely from the edit summary. This is to ensure that the notification system works correctly.

Speaking of notifications, to avoid creating unnecessary noise in the "mention" subtype:
Please avoid wikilinking my username in an existing discussion (i.e. one not newly started by you) within the talk namespaces.
(Copying and pasting discussion from another venue is an exception; I do not expect my username to be unlinked.)
In particular, do not use {{reply to}} when making the first and only reply to a discussion started by me.

Generally, I will voluntarily follow "0.5RR": I will not revert more than once before discussing, nor will I re-revert any good-faith reversion without first discussing it.

I use {{tlx}} even when {{tl}} would suffice because I've been told that the <code> formatting is more semantically correct than plain type.

In regard to discussing the printability of redirects, I agree with the use of "printability" and "unprintability" as the noun forms, but I will likely continue to use "printworthy" and "unprintworthy" as the adjective forms, if only because "printable" implies "printable character" and "unprintable" implies "profane."

Notes on categorizing redirects[edit]

When I mention in an edit summary that "R from related word has been deprecated...," I am referring mainly to the use of {{category diffuse}} on the category page Redirects from related words. I am aware that the R from related word template does not use {{tdeprecated}} and is unlikely ever to do so.

When are edits to redirects minor?[edit]

I used to flag all edits that solely affected the categorization of a redirect as minor. (On the other hand, I have always treated any change to the target of a redirect as non-minor.) I have since revised my guideline to include the following criteria for redirects within the main namespace:

  1. Any RCAT change that affects printability is non-minor.
    (This refers to any change in the overall status of a redirect as printworthy, unprintworthy, or neither. For example, adding {{R from misspelling}} to a redirect already categorized as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} would not fall under this rule, as the redirect would already be unprintworthy due to the latter.)
  2. The addition of RCATs related to attribution is non-minor; this includes {{R from merge}}, {{R from duplicated article}}, {{R with history}}, and {{R with old history}}
    ...except that {{R from move}} is still minor, because (1) it describes an action that is logged anyway, and (2) the MediaWiki software is configured to add it automatically to new redirects created from moves; adding it to old moved redirects constitutes trivial maintenance.
  3. The removal of an existing RCAT, whether or not it is replaced with another, is non-minor...
    ...except for trivial maintenance such as the removal of categories that are nonexistent (redlinked) or that constitute blatant vandalism. (For other examples, see #5 below.) This serves as a courtesy to other editors.
  4. Any edit that affects (adds, removes, or replaces) three or more RCATs is non-minor.
    Rationale: Edits that affect two RCATs are common, but those that affect three or more RCATs are rare.
  5. I consider the following trivial maintenance and therefore inherently minor. That is, they are minor when done by themselves, and they do not affect the minor-edit status of other changes (example):
    • Conversion between different RCAT template formats (bare single-cat templates vs. {{Redirect category shell}} aka {{rcat shell}})
    • Bypassing of RCAT-template redirects; per WP:NOTBROKEN, I will avoid doing this by itself
    • Addition of the "of" parameter to {{R from misspelling}}, in simple uncontroversial cases where the correct value is obvious
      (In the spirit of #3 above, modifying or removing the parameter if it is already present does not count as minor unless I am doing so to fix obvious typos or vandalism. For a case that is not "simple," see Facist/Facism; note that my edits to said redirects may contravene my current guideline.)
    • Correction of mistakes that result in inconsistent printability categorization, for example changing {{R from plural}}{{R printworthy}} to {{R from plural|printworthy}}

As of 23:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC), I will no longer flag any edits as minor for redirects from or to any non-article namespace; this includes, but is not limited to, cross-namespace redirects. The rare edits that hit only #5 above are not an exception to this, as the criterion applies only to mainspace.

If the edit only affects categorization and does not meet any of the above criteria for a major edit, it is minor.

Mistakes to fix[edit]

  • I may have misused {{r from modification}} for grammatical modifications where a more specific template is available, such as the "r from (part of speech)" templates. I'm not sure how big a deal this is, but I'll try to fix it nevertheless.
  • I may have misused {{r from former name}} together with rcats for names of different length ({{r from long name}}, {{r from short name}}, {{r from initialism}}, {{r to initialism}} etc.); discussion has since determined that such categories require the long and short forms of the name to be in simultaneous official use.
  • I may have used {{r from long name}} in isolation when a more specific r to... (acronym or initialism) template is available.
  • The definition of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} was recently clarified to apply also to natural disambiguations; I have now-incorrectly categorized many of those as "other" or "incorrect" disambiguations.
  • As mentioned above, {{R from plural}}{{R printworthy}} should be {{R from plural|printworthy}}. I caught this mistake once; did I do this at any other times in the past?
  • (FIXME: This is not an RCAT issue; figure out where to put it.) I've often failed to mark simple additions of wikilinks as minor; the problem is that I've confused wikilinks with "visible tags or other templates."

Article drafts to work on[edit]

I have no specific timeline for this work due to things going on in my life. If you really want me to work on one of these ASAP, I encourage you to talk.

Arcade system boards by company[edit]

Compare the existing article List of Sega arcade system boards.

Notes to self/general wall of shame[edit]

Three observations[edit]

  1. WP:BURDEN says "adds or restores," not "adds or removes" – with good reason.
    It is generally improper to revert, without first discussing, any "out-of-process" removal of content with notability/sourcing concerns. In particular, this means discussion in order to organize a search for references. (Example)
  2. WP:PRESERVE is not a suicide pact.
    Remember that it says "Try to fix problems"; that means that you must actually make a good-faith effort to improve an article and that you will not necessarily succeed in bringing it up to standard. It is not a carte blanche justification for inclusionism, and nor is WP:ATD. Even though it should be common courtesy to suggest alternative outlets, it is futile to require their use. Don't be afraid to remove poorly-sourced and/or non-notable content, even an entire article, no matter how much you may be interested in the topic.
  3. "Consensus can change" does not mean "consensus must change."
    1. It does not mean you can change any consensus you want.
      It is redundant to say "established consensus," because a consensus is an agreement among multiple people and must be inherently hard to disestablish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, especially when they are about policies and guidelines. (See also Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid § A word of caution.)
    2. Consensus is not temporary.
      Don't discount an old consensus just because of the time that has elapsed.

Count of mistakes caught by bots[edit]

I am a native speaker of American English, but that doesn't make me 100% reliable at subtleties like this, especially when there's so much else going on in my mind. (Note to self: In the future, try to reword the sentence to avoid tricky cases.)