User talk:Izno

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for helping Wikipedia grow! Promotional Attack (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

co-authors[edit]

I saw your comment here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Deprecated_parameters_in_the_citation_template that you fixed a problem related to deprecation of co-authors.

The Google Books citation tool has the same problem. I poked the creator here: User_talk:Apoc2400#Deprecated_parameter:_coauthors but haven't heard a response.

I realize you might not have access to that tool's code, but my guess is that you know exactly how to do the fix, so I am hoping you might offer to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The fix for the tools is basically to output |authors= rather than |coauthors=/|coauthor= or any other variant of such. The maintainers should be able to fix their tools' issues within an hour (find + replace + check to ensure nothing else is being placed into that parameter, since the coauthors parameter was exclusive before to coauthors). --Izno (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Apoc's tool has other issues which are unfixed, as well. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
APOC is a volunteer, and I am extremely reluctant to push any volunteer to do something when I do not have a clear picture of the time necessary to make the change. Your suggestion that it is an easy fix encourages me. I wonder if you were to offer to help? I can’t make that offer because if they took me up on the offer I wouldn’t know quite what to do. No big deal, except I use that template a lot and it is frustrating when it pops up the red link. If you don’t want to ask, with your permission I will request again and suggest that someone who knows what’s going on thinks it’s a relatively easy fix, linking to your comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Heard. You can provide the link to my comment, no problem. However, the code source has not been updated in 2 years. I might suggest that it's time to abandon the use of the project or to find a new maintainer for the project and migrate the project e.g. to Labs (I am not so technical as I should be else I would take care of the request, I think?). The code is licensed appropriately for such a migration.

Citoid, which is an extension using VE, may be a suitable alternative since I believe it performs the same functions for a greater set of websites. With the soon-deployment of a single edit interface, you should be able to access Citoid trivially. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried using citoid (assuming that I am using Citoid if I use the Cite button in VE, and it failed. But maybe that’s the place to add the functionality?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on the description at mw:Citoid, I'd say so. Project on phab. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC[edit]

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

Yup![edit]

This made me laugh. Have a good one, Izno. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I was inspired by your removal of the development names. :) --Izno (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I figured, yeah. That discussion didn't help much, huh? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Soetermans: It did. The sources I listed in my edit are RS, which is why I listed them in the edit summary. There were others in the VG/S RS search using "HOTS" directly (sometimes in the text, almost always with a tag page e.g. "kotaku.com/tags/hots"). --Izno (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
For what's it worth, I have no intention of reverting or debating on this issue, I've brought it up several times at WT:VG already without any substantial input. Same like the subtitle issue. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you somewhat regarding the subtitles crap. It's obnoxious.

Regarding abbreviations, I don't see that you have ground to stand on in this specific instance. You can plug HOTS into the VG/RS search yourself and you will find exactly what the article now provides. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that HotS is the common abbreviation for Heroes of the Storm. What bugs me is that there's no general consensus on this, if we should or shouldn't add them. While I'd personally rather didn't see abbreviations added to articles, at the same I would really would like some clearity. It's hard to stay consistent when abbreviations like GTA, KotOR, FFVII or LoZ: OoT aren't used, but they are commonly known and are often used as redirects. But hey, again it's just us talking about it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with you when you say "there's no general consensus" -> Its specific inclusion and associated guidance in WP:MOS/WP:MOSABBR makes it evident to me that there is general consensus for inclusion of abbreviations. How many we include and their appearance in terms of capitals and lowercase letters is probably a per-article discussion to have. --Izno (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just thinking, what if we use {{efn}}, like for Japanese titles? Something like The Last of Us{{efn|Commonly abbreviated ''TLoU''<ref>http://kotaku.com/should-you-get-the-last-of-us-again-on-ps4-1611888103</ref>}}. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Get consensus for that at WT:MOS/WT:MOSABBR first; I'm not particularly objectionable to it, but I think there's a rather large difference between the two: a single (or perhaps multiple) abbreviations still end up taking less space than even one {{nihongo}} does; a second difference is that {{nihongo}} is not English (aside from the literal translation), so less people reading the English Wikipedia can understand it. TLOU is evidently an abbreviation, which English-reading people will understand as such.

That said, I think an improvement you could make (if you wanted) would be to include references to the abbreviations. I'm not sure how I feel about that given the guidance in WP:MOSLEAD, which says to avoid references in the lead. This might be an interesting point of discussion

Aside: I generally agree that hiding {{nihongo}} behind a {{efn}} or similar is an okay practice, though I'm not sure I personally would use it if I were writing an article. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll do that. I'm curious to see where this goes. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried rewording it so it doesn't come off that my opinion is more important somehow. I hope it doesn't come off as such. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary[edit]

In this edit to WP:CITE you edit a bullet, but your edit summary seems to say you want the bullet you edited, and one other, removed. Is that really what you meant? Please discuss on talk page of the guideline; discussion via edit summaries is next to impossible. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: It was an idle thought that crossed my mind in the middle of the edit I made to correct the intent of the second bullet. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The second and third bullet need to remain, because "major citation styles" is not defined within the guideline. Those intent on introducing citation templates everywhere, or introducing their favorite variation of citation templates everywhere, will seize upon the vague meaning of "major citation style" to introduce what they want everywhere on the basis that "the article had footnote citations before, and footnote citations after my change, so it's OK" or "the article had parenthetical citations before, and has parenthetical citations after my change, so it's OK. Similar reasoning would be applied to changes in the variant of citation templates present; as long as the rendered results were about the same, the fan-boy of a certain variant would claim it's just fine. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Span[edit]

Good catch, had my mind on something else.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

no browsers don't adjust[edit]

I'm not gonna revert your edit to the rfa header, because it's not worth my time. But browsers do NOT adjust, thank you. Why did I have the word The smashed up against the page border to the left of that ugly "Who's going for rfa?" table, and a pile of subsequent text below it? Because browsers do not adjust. Have a nice day.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

@Lingzhi: If it's not worth your time, why did you comment on my talk page? That aside, if you disagree and think the format of the page should change, WT:RFA/WT:Requests for adminship/Header are that way. You were bold, I reverted. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Template editing[edit]

Would this user right be of interest to you? I'm sure you meet all the criteria. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I've considered it but I hadn't looked into the criteria for granting. Now that I have, I see I meet the first 4. I can't say I've executed 5 or 6, though I've definitely participated in enough discussions on highly protected templates to probably waive those. If you're willing to grant it, sure. --Izno (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I have no reservations granting it. I'm suppose to subst {{Template editor granted}} on your talk page, but perhaps you could just read it. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

phab:T54180#2169644 was not primarily directed at you. ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Oi! You should make it clear to whom you are addressing; your objection was noted prior by me as an obvious excellent use case. --Izno (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice to quit vandalizing the article Jazz[edit]

You don't own the article, it's free for all to add material to as long as it's relevant. You reverted my valuable addition of relevant material twice in a 24-hour period. One more time and I will be forced to report you for violation of the 3-revert rule. Sorry, but I am the offended party, and you can't discuss it on my talk page because I don't have any, so I'm posting this notice on yours. As to a discussion, what is there to discuss? Any and all Wiki articles that mention a person should endeavor to provide an image if one is available, so your bold reversion of a whole string of images is not constructive, it's pure vandalism, and can result in disciplinary action if you persist. Using a gallery format saves page space, so don't try to make that the issue please.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talkcontribs)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talkcontribs)

using the protected edit template[edit]

This is actually my first time using the protected edit template. Once I made my reply, should I have re-activated the template to draw attention to it again, or am I nagging you when you already have the discussion on your watchlist? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fourthords: Generally: It would be seen as bad faith if you were to reactivate the edit-protected template and either a) the edit still does not have consensus/is noncontroversial (WP:Wikipedia has no deadline) or b) the edit to be made is not immediately obvious, such that any old user with the correct permissions could implement the edit. Both of these criteria are mostly the same as the original criteria to add the edit-protected template in the first place.

Indeed, it can be good to reactivate an answered but not executed request because sometimes the edit is good and has consensus but the original responder is unable to execute; this allows someone else to review the change and perhaps execute on it themselves.

Specifically: I wanted to add a test to the sandbox but was unable to for two reasons: 1) I was called away from the computer just about as I was looking at the sandbox and 2) while I was looking at the sandbox, I verified that there was a delta between the sandbox and the main template and wanted to ping the most recent editors of the sandbox to see if they knew why. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For cleaning up after my mistake (at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 18) --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

ORCP[edit]

Greetings, Izno. I noticed that you just archived my request at ORCP. Now I recognize that there had not been very much activity on my post, but I had really been hoping for feedback from more than two editors (the third was an IP that clearly had an axe to grind); so would it be impolitic for me to unarchive it? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I have no personal qualms. However, from what I've observed, once you're outside the 2 week range you're probably not going to get any further feedback. My advice is that you take the feedback provided, work for another 2-3 months without the negatives pointed out, and then either run for RFA or submit another poll--probably leaning to an RFA, given that both editors of serious nature scored you an 8 of 10. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. I'll plug along, and take stock after a few months. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

... for putting my name forward for the template editor user right, if only to keep the existing template editors from getting mad at me for the repeated "add/remove/change the dates of a TfD notice" requests. Face-smile.svg ~ RobTalk 00:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I don't expect that there are any other TErs who would be mad at you for doing what you do, but OTOH it seemed obvious to me that you could use the right. I also have the belief that, if we're going to devolve admin-rights, we might as well do it with more people. --Izno (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Further reading is not limited to books or offline material[edit]

I saw this edit summary you gave that says "further reading is for books and other offline sources". That is not true. Further reading is for any material editors think is worthwhile that provides additional information. These can be offline or online. They can be book or non-book. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: Indeed. I believe that at some time, these were restricted in the fashion I suggested, but since they are not now.... --Izno (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Xenoblade Chronicles Track list[edit]

In Xenoblade Chronicles, I noticed your removal of the track list and saw your reasoning for it. However, I feel the need to point out that I used Final Fantasy Tactics as a template, which is currently a Featured Article. I don't understand how that page is a Featured article and yet, it goes against the article guidelines. --MomoQca (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@MomoQca: The gist of my reply is WP:OTHERSTUFF; in this case, the guideline goal-posts have become more strict since the pass of that article as an FA. My recommendation would be to remove the track lists from Tactics as well. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about your modification with a nowiki tag[edit]

Hello Izno,

I have a question: What was the reason of your modification here on Melsbach? I used the <b/> in my older modification because I wanted the blue link to end after "Wied" and not to extend to "ischen". As far as I understand, any tag of the type <any_tag/> is sufficient for this, so <b/> and <nowiki/> should work exactly the same way, or am I wrong? If so, why did you changed it?

Regards and sorry for the question, --Cyfal (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cyfal: For some tags, that functionality will break soon. That is, most tags which shouldn't self-close in Html 5 but do in Mediawiki (b, i, div, span, and a few others I think). See WP:VPT#Tech News: 2016-20. --Izno (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your explanation. Oh my God, I think I've used this <b/> often in my nearly nine years of Wikipedia edits... Sigh... --Cyfal (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Cyfal: I've nabbed most of the main namespace during today, unless Special:Search is lying to me, so I'm not too worried. :) Going to work on the template namespace next. --Izno (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hovercards prefs[edit]

Hello, you may want to participate and help publicize the voting for Hovercards preferences here. Thanks!----Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Seth MacFarlane[edit]

Hi, we seem to cross paths quite a lot on our travels, but I'm not sure we've ever directly interacted before! As an uninvolved editor I was wondering if you could have a look at the above navbox and give your considered opinion at Template talk:Seth MacFarlane#Navbox needs improvements. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I muse around on the navbox stuff and make the regular appearance at WP:TFD. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Structured citations on Wikidata[edit]

Izno, pardon me for bothering you again, but you've been very helpful in improving my understanding of Wikidata, and I was hoping you could answer another question. RexxS's recommendation in the current conversation at the Village Pump is to provide a citation as an ISBN. Surely there's a better way to do that? I can see that a full {{cite book}} citation structure is probably too much too ask, but if I understood our earlier conversations, one can construct composite entities in Wikidata, so surely some form of structured citation is possible. E.g. a property called book-source with properties

  • Title
  • Author-first
  • Author-last
  • First published
  • Location
  • Publisher
  • Pages

Can this be done? Is anything like this being discussed or built on Wikidata? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me catch up to that conversation (which I have been watching closely, of course), since I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Okay, I answered at AN. Please let me know how that process of sourcing works out for you. In fact, a full citation template structure is provided for. :D --Izno (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; I am partway through creating the bits I would need on Wikidata; having to pause for dinner now. I'll ping you when I'm done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I posted some notes. Let me know if I'm way off base. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You're on target, or close enough not to sweat the details from my POV (wikis, always to be improved, they are). I think I have an issue with some of the instruction at d:Help:Sources, but that's not an issue for here. --Izno (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. If I ever get to the point where I think I understand things well enough, I might try expanding those instructions. I'm tempted to do some more data entry, but I think what's needed next is a structured discussion, which is something Wikipedia is very ill-equipped for. Is there documentation anywhere of use cases for Wikidata in a Wikipedia? Perhaps something could be done with iterated discussions based on the most important specific use cases, but I think we'd have to get pretty concrete and specific because most editors will not grasp the subtleties if they are only given an abstract statement of use. I might suggest something like that at the Village Pump thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Most people of which I'm aware have the following use cases in mind for Wikipedia:
  1. (Semi-)Automatic creation of (tabular) list articles via queries. (In fact, there was a recent call to arms for those use cases at d:WD:PC#Looking for list article editors, so if you know of editors who are interested!)
  2. (Semi-)Automatic keeping of tabular information (something of the subset of the above, just with a different scope in mind), such as with Template:Video game reviews or perhaps one of the tables documenting the timeline of Hurricane Katrina.
  3. Infoboxes
  4. Interwiki storage, of course.
There might be other use cases, but none particularly topical to our project here. Most of these have been talked about, and now that we're starting to play with the data, we're hitting roadbumps. That's nothing new w.r.t. change. --Izno (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no widely discussed use case for citations, in something like the form I outlined above? I'm amazed. For an editor who focuses on content, that's by far the most interesting possibility, I'd think. The cases you mention clearly have value, but the most widely distributed pre-structured data in en-wiki is surely the content of the citation templates. It's not possible to use a bot to harvest them and turn them into Wikidata entries, of course. However, just imagine if every citation template used Wikidata where possible (there are probably cases where it couldn't be made to work). For a start, one could use this to identify all uses of an unreliable statement. Analytics on the structure of the citation network would be very interesting just for their own sake. It would lend itself to a version of the reference library function, where you could find other editors with access to the source you needed. You could check to see how a given source is used by other editors in related articles. You could find citations by a more directed search than the current method of searching Wikipedia to see if someone else has cited the same fact in another context. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, that use case. That one slips my mind because it's not often advertised as being on the development team's radar, and in fact, probably doesn't need to be: I think all of the citation information can be added and used without any further software development on the Wikidata side. In fact, we had a very recent process-controversial creation of the cites property by an over-zealous conference attendee. (Properties are only created by consensus.) --Izno (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata watchlist entries[edit]

(If there's a forum where I can ask these questions, so I don't need to bug you all the time, please let me know.) On my watchlist I see the Wikidata entries looking like this:

D Tod Sloan (jockey) (Q7812099); 10:00 . . Danrok (talk | contribs) (‎Created claim: Property:P509: Q147778, #autolist2)

Since the label information exists, is there any reason this couldn't be formatted like so?

D Tod Sloan (jockey) (Q7812099); 10:00 . . Danrok (talk | contribs) (‎Created claim: Cause of death (Property:P509) = Cirrhosis (Q147778), #autolist2)

Who would I request this of -- is this a WMF development task? So a phab ticket would be needed? I think something like this would make editors much more likely to show Wikidata changes in their watchlists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Since I can't use the Wikidata-integrated watchlist (that's phab:T46874), I'm a little less familiar with what how the Wikidata-integrated watchlist works. Based on what you're asking, I think the task you're looking for is phab:T118935. --Izno (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And you can always bug me, and I will try to answer (though in the next couple weeks my computer use will probably be somewhat limited--I will be on vacation and will be deliberately away from looking at screens all day :). If you want en.WP community response, that can usually be asked at either WP:VPT or WT:Wikidata, while for a Wikidata community response, that would be d:WD:PC, and a Wikidata development team response would be at d:WD:Contact the development team or a task on Phabricator (usually it's better to stop by on a community page before trying phabricator for a query). --Izno (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That looks like it; thanks. I've subscribed to the bug; and I see you added a clarifying question -- I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the links; I'll add them to my list. And enjoy your vacation! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane template: Web[edit]

Hey come you're not saying anything on the talk page, I brought up the conversation so you and the editor can talk about something ridiculous like this, but you haven't. Make yourself welcomed at the talk page so we can talk about this. 107.77.228.122 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well technically I don't want to talk about this issue, but the other editor is making something so small into something big. I'm just pointing out that there is a major difference with something that airs on television and on a website. 107.77.228.122 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

list of star systems 25-30[edit]

Deleted. Thanks for the link! Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata reliability question[edit]

Hey Izno, would you know whether there are plans in place to lock down entries or properties on Wikidata eventually? For example, once something is sufficiently referenced, is the idea that the Wikidata entry will follow the Wikipedia model (open to change by anybody, kept accurate only by the vigilance of watching editors)? I imagine some high-profile "facts" will also be contested or subject to fringe opinion so I'm curious if there has been any discussion on how to handle this. czar 22:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: A simple question with perhaps a complex answer. Broadly, the answer to your parenthetical question is "yes" (with the aid of tooling of course--e.g. ORES is coming online). I think though that I need to make sure something is explained: Wikidata will take any fact, with the distinguishing factors on Wikidata being sources used to inform a statement's rank and qualifiers. So the concept of e.g. NPOV/WEIGHT/FRINGE does not exist in the exact-same way as on (English) Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Stripping pennant numbers[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Bulk stripping of pennant numbers? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing WikiProjects[edit]

Why are you removing WikiProjects from articles such as here, and here? These are relevant drafts to the projects and for example, if I looked at User:S@bre/StarCraft Ghost: Nova and wanted to delete an nine year old draft for a redirected page, the project should probably be notified via article alerts rather than not finding out. Actually I'll probably MFD that one right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I'm just of the opinion (perhaps wrongly so :D) that a user space draft isn't obviously inviting the rest of the community to edit. Also, it's unclear to me that there's value in sorting them into the draft class when that's the case, which is where I identified them. They should probably have the dated user space draft though... --Izno (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Well from my personal experience, projects that actually look into and work on drafts like Category:Draft-Class EastEnders articles will end up with more actual articles of substance moving into mainspace. Projects that doesn't bother with drafts just because of the namespace, are missing out. If the draft actually goes somewhere, the same tags will be restored anyways. And userspace isn't an WP:OWNed page anyways. WP:STALEDRAFT policy and other considerations do come into play. You're basically setting it up that these projects will never be aware of any work that has been done on this topic unless someone specifically seeks it out and especially for users who fall inactive, that pretty much guarantees their work will just sit stagnant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: The problem I see (at least with the VG-tagged articles in the batch I removed) is that they aren't auto-tagged as drafts, meaning that if they do move into mainspace, they won't be reassessed until someone patrols the draft category. I know of no-one actively doing so in the project presently, so that's bad (maybe I can consider myself such a person? unlikely). I tentatively agree with that pretty much guarantees their work will just sit stagnant, but I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing. Indeed, for WikiProjects that care about their drafts actively, it's probably a bad thing. But for those that don't? Or who recognize that some drafts just will never be mainspaced (I find it likely that most of those drafts of WP East Enders will never see the light of mainspace given their primarily fictional bent)? --Izno (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Look, I guess the question is, do you think you speak for the entire VG project when you say "no one is going to be reviewing these pages and no one will work on these drafts" so should they be removed? You also removed them from the other projects as well. Someone from the professional wrestling project was doing the same thing before and others in the project just went with a "why remove it" approach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: The last handful of drafts I MFDd (in draftspace, mind you) I saw little participation from VG members, which likely means either a) they don't care or b) they didn't disagree with the MFDs I submitted. Would the same hold true in user space? Who knows.

Please don't mis-paraphrase me. I did not say anything remotely similar to no one is going to be reviewing these pages and no one will work on these drafts -- only that that is likely the case, precisely because I don't speak for the entire group. If you want their opinion in plural, WT:VG is that way. On that point, I anticipate such a discussion would be an even split of "it's not hurting anyone" and "a number drafts don't provide us a whole lot of value, in user space or draft space, because they don't approach what is usually a fictional subject IAW WP:WAF", more likely leaning to the latter than the former. The project tends toward being skeptical of too much fictional content, likely as a defensive mechanism to the ancient spite of the pop culture wars from when I started, where hosts of pages were deleted from mainspace for failing to establish real-world context.

All in all, do what you want or feel is necessary. If you should feel it informative to that end, my opinion is that none of the video games members will be likely to target most video games drafts which are older than 2-3 years of age, since that's about when the group as a whole matured toward WP:WAF. All of the ones I touched recently in userspace failed to meet the WP:WAF bar, if not also the WP:N bar, and topics without WP:N potential don't get worked on. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the removal of other projects. Nevertheless, WP:N isn't the bar for drafts (I haven't figured out one). Either way, I tagged them, you removed them and I'm not going to revert so fine. If these drafts aren't going anywhere, I suggest we take them to MFD rather than debate whether or not the project should care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: And I did not attempt to explain such removal--I already suggested you can do as you wish. And kindly, do not mis-represent my position--it was not "N is the bar for drafts" but instead "N is the bar for people to work on drafts". If the draft has no chance, or little chance, of meeting the N bar, people simply won't work on it, and it will never improve, and etc. Has anyone (you?) made such an argument regarding the recent drafts discussion? --Izno (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect[edit]

You said that just hat this -- recommendation that a response to nableezy's last comment would also be a tban vio, so don't do that. That is not correct. The discussion is about reliable sources, not about the IP-conflict. Also, please refrain from archiving discussions on my talkpage. If you have anything to say to me, simply write me on my talkpage. That's what it's for. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: I'm mostly concerned that you might get blocked because of the discussion of the source. "Broadly-construed" means broadly-construed, and I would take that to mean any source relating to the information which you had desired to add to the article in question. I suspect an administrator at WP:AE would have the same read. You're welcome, of course, to respond to his comment, but that's your risk to take, and I'm simply trying to head that off. *shrug* --Izno (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Seriously. Allow me to explain a little bit more in detail. Initially, I wasn't aware, that even on my talkpage I must stick to the topic ban (a rule I find a bit overdone, but okay, it's not up to me). By the time I retracted my request, the discussion had already evolved into one about reliable sources in general, with no further direct connection to the IP-conflict. I feel comfortable with it, and I really don't want to edit on Wikipedia in fear of my shadow, so I'll just take my changes and hope that everything will stay quite. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest[edit]

Hello Izno. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV[edit]

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, given you participated in the discussion and/or expressed interest in the discussion seen here. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Review guide[edit]

Could you read over and fix any clear obvious issues? Haven't gotten a lot of feedback thus far. WP:VG/WD. Need someone with a really solid WD understanding to take a pass over it. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret: Yeah, poke me at some later date if it doesn't look like I've done that. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice of you to pick that up[edit]

The correct name is now placed in the RfC. Nice of you to pick that up and let me know. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains-of-Paris: I figured you would be able to figure it out, but I mostly just didn't want my name apparently supporting a position that I do not. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Call to Arms (video game) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Call to Arms (video game)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 9 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Call to Arms (video game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kickstarter was not available in mainland Europe in 2012, so Digitalmindsoft crowdfunded video game Call to Arms through their website? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Call to Arms (video game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Call to Arms (video game)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Explantion[edit]

Thank you for the explanation on my talk page about disambig/class=C. It was a big help to me. How did you know I wanted help?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Your comment at WT:COUNCIL. --Izno (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crysis 4 (September 25)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Abdullah Alam was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Abdullah Alam (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Izno, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Abdullah Alam (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)