User talk:Randy Kryn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For entertainment porpoises only:

My nom for Best Vandal Edit in the categories of...[edit]

Best vandal nominee for...[edit]

Much ado about nothing

Now you know[edit]

If you've never seen it...[edit]

. . .drop what you're doing and go to Veiled Christ. On a laptop, so you can click on the image two or three times to enlarge it. This almost unbelievable 1753 sculpture ("how'd he do that?"), carved out of one piece of marble, has the only Wikipedia article which has to prove, with sources, that an artwork is not the work of an alchemist.

Write on![edit]

Don't kick the Ouija board. Which may also result in Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama et al..

Perhaps my best geek edit (and geek article)[edit]

A five cushion bank shot: italicizing Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer links on Wikipedia's Klingon language page. And to read about and silently honor five of the last eight Earthlings to travel to and circle the Moon, see Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Phooey.

This one is always interesting[edit]

See and listen to Wikipedia edits as they occur. Designed by Stephen LaPorte and Mahmoud Hashemi of hatnote.com, the link was copied from a user page, don't remember where, but it's deservedly on quite a few as well as having its own article. Just who is making all this noise? Well...

...the size of our stadium[edit]

Here is another user's subpage about how many Wikipedians can dance on the head of a pin.

************************************************

italicization of exhibit titles[edit]

@Randy Kryn: Regarding your edit summary at Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park, there are at least a couple of ways to message somebody on Wikipedia, please don't edit an article in order to put a message in the edit summary.

In the edit summary, you asked...

Are you sure exhibits are italicized? Some editors italicize art exhibitions, but stand-alone exhibits such as those mentioned on this page, I don't know if that's correct.

You know what? I just examined the change, and it was immediately obvious that it was annoying that it wasn't italicizied ... the fact that someone had gone to the trouble to remove the italics, it was time for a facepalm.

One might learn a bunch of rules without understanding the reason for those rules, thereby thinking they are just arbitrary, but they often have an actual purpose. In this case, the italics serve to set off the text, alerting the reader that the words in italics don't operate as "words that are part of the text" but as a distinct entity of their own.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and as I've discovered too many times, everybody thinks their own opinion is equally valid regardless of how poorly informed I may consider it. Therefore, I will suggest you ask your question at the WP:Teahouse, which is intended for this purpose. Fabrickator (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll probably do that. Nobody has ever suggested that before. I've seen edit summaries used for conversations many times, and do it myself not often but occasionally, probably more than most editors. But nobody has ever suggested to me or mentioned not to use them. Thanks, never really thought about it before. As for exhibits being italicized, I don't know, but I thought the opposite was probably correct. That's what collabs are for, you might have caught a mistake I made, so thank you, as well, for that. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I took it to the Teahouse. The discussion is here. Seems like a valuable place and project, I just never ventured into it before, and thanks for introducing me to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Update. The Teahouse discussion seems to say that quote marks are used for exhibitions, not italics. I won't re-edit the page in question though, it was just a "fix" during an edit run. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Thinker[edit]

Noticing this edit, I thought I'd mention that my brother used to work up there with Canter-Fitzgerald. He helped build the world's first computerized bond trading system. And lost a lot of old friends there. Re the Rodin sculptures, we have many good ones at Stanford. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad he left the company or was elsewhere during the attack, and it sounds like your family has computer-colored blood in its veins. One of the best things about Rodin may be his choice of mistress, Camille Claudel, who became his collaborator and then his rival. There hasn't been a good English language film about Claudel, seems to be waiting for an actress to grab the role of a lifetime. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.[edit]

Yes We Can CanNeonorange (Phil) 01:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well Wang Dang Doodle! Randy Kryn (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Paris[edit]

Hey,

Thanks. I thought maybe someone should create the last arrondissement templates missing, do you know someone willing to? Also create the articles associated to the red links on "Passages couverts de Paris".

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, nice work. Maybe ask on the Paris talk page itself, probably that's where most of the editors who might want to do that would see it. Lots of red links on that page. One nice thing about Wikipedia is that it will never be completed and time is sort of irrelevant, so there's a good chance those templates and pages will be taken up by someone. Maybe list, on the Paris talk page, which templates are needed to complete the 20 arrondissements. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ;-( ;-D[edit]

That's the first time anyone ever thanked me for one of my veganism edits, actually crying right now, I really needed that *cries* I didnt edit since long, I have a lot of problems with bullying and even now my phone is hacked again, so maybe my account will vanish too.. please watch over it sometimes, it would mean a lot to me, if someone should take over and post anti-vegan sh*t please delete it or let an admin delete it, whatever works!! Thank you again!! I am vegan since a long time btw just staying low profile due to all the bullying.. Veggieburgerfan (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You're very welcome Veggieburgerfan, you've done some fine work here. You maybe should change your password quickly if there's a chance of hacking (I think you can do that by clicking 'Preferences', at least on monobook). Yes, I'll keep your user page on my watch list. As for the bullies, I say "Bull!", they can only bully you from their own inadequate feelings and lifestyles. All the bullies are probably meat eating dehydrated trauma-fulled people who were abused when younger. Have you seen the List of vegans and List of vegetarians here? I've been meaning to post there about something I did a few years ago that was reversed, and you've kind of reminded me to do that. Will ping you if you'd like. And great to meet (meat) you! Randy Kryn (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I make no sense, its a Trojan in my phone, and I cannot get rid of it without a computer nor afford a new phone, so I use this compromised phone in death end mode ;-/ Changing passwords is useless, thats why I use a dumb pseudo-password as I am 100% aware I might lose anything I use anytime ;-/ I had more Wikipedia accounts in the past, even worked as an admin on a Wikia project, its all lost because I am getting targeted since years ;-/ Meeting a kind person like you in between all that is like a ray of light Veggieburgerfan (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm a ray of something, but thank you. Can you use a library computer to change the password, or would the password be "caught" by the hackers if you log in on the phone? I'm not computer savvy enough to know. I've never logged in anywhere or edited on a phone, I'm content with text, camera, and actual calls once in awhile. You should beg, borrow, or steal a laptop (wear gloves, and when the police catch you say "But officer, I'm sleepwalking don't you know"). If your hackers are reading this page, hello, and please leave this person alone and become Wikipedia editors yourselves, it's much more fun than harassing. Cool beans. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Mitchell v. United States[edit]

Small spelling difference but we have a disambig page for Mitchel v. United States, as well. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also Special:WhatLinksHere/Mitchell_v._United_States seems to have a lot of incoming links not related to the 1999 case, and there is no "exit" from that article for readers that land there looking for those other cases. Honestly, I think moving it to Mitchell v. United States (1999) and then move Mitchel v. United States to Mitchell v. United States and expand the disambig to include cases from all years that use both spellings. -- Netoholic @ 06:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Netoholic, both ideas make sense. I'm glad this was brought up. The 1941 case was a landmark case, and hopefully one of the legal editors can work up an article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
1999 added. I couldn't move the disambig, but added the two cases to it and made an uncontrov RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Great job. I think the RM got moved to a formal discussion, but the move seems to have already been completed - I think it can close early, but not sure. Also, take a look at the expansion User:Bkonrad made to Mitchell v. United States. Even if they are redlinks, per WP:DABRED, its fine as long as we link to coverage on other pages... and that coverage forms the basis for adding the disambiguation to the 1999 case. -- Netoholic @ 14:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally, if you see a SCOTUS case title that may be ambiguous, if you look at what links here and see entries for multiple volumes under List of United States Supreme Court cases, that is a good indication disambiguation is needed. Unfortunately, the naming of cases is not always very consistent and especially with earlier cases, there may be transcription errors and such. olderwiser 14:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Those Mitchell's sure do have their share of trouble. Thanks, and I left a thank you note at Bkonrad's page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Maltese Falcon[edit]

Thanks for reversing this nonsense. I checked on the vandal responsible and found he'd just made a similar edit on another film article. Ingenious but (sigh) disruptive! Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks. I liked the 1931 film, and was surprised how so much of it was repeated word for word and scene for scene in the Bogart reprise which removed the pre-code language and scenes. Thanks for 'watching' the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring text unreferenced since 2015 (and even earlier)[edit]

You are a Wikipedian since 2009, you should know rules already, no? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(2007 actually) text, ? Please explain where and when. I'll then provide the why. thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Since you've not answered I went looking and, apparently, you meant my revert which added back the list of words not used in the writing style E-Prime. Such as "is", "was", "be", "are", etc., a list easily found in many of the references already on the page. I'll add the list back with a couple of those linked reference at some point soon, as the page and topic seem incomplete unless they include that list. There, the why (written in E-Prime). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Altarpieces[edit]

Randy, I was amazed today how empty this was. I have done some work on it (about doubling it in size), but no doubt your implacable categorizing of dogs, angels, forks, plates & so on in art will lead you to many that are uncategorized, & it would be great if you could add them. Ideally the sub-cats Category:Polyptychs, Category:Diptychs and Category:Triptychs should be used instead where this is appropriate. Do let me know if you have any queries, cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look. Lots of altarpieces and triptychs to add, the trick is to remember where they are. And thanks for the compliment, although, to let any page stalkers or accidental readers know, I haven't added categories for forks or plates, which are solely in the deimagination and/or unpredicted future. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, you did a great job in doubling the category. When all of the categories are taken together, there are 199 entries. I'll keep watch for more, but that's quite a bit already, so I'd guess that you and others have gotten the vast majority of them. It's a category I've never consciously seen or thought about, or I probably would have been adding them in along the way. So my apologies for not helping. Nice work, thanks. Altar hobbyists everywhere will be better for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - actually I doubt that's half the ones with articles, though we certainly now have a better selection. At some periods it becomes trickier to say what is an altarpiece and what is a painting for a rich home, but perhaps done with the intention of later giving it to a church as a memorial for the patron. Or what might have been done for a sacristy or monastic refectory. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Good analysis, and I hope you're right about the number of pages left to find. My way of working is to go more by lists, other categories, etc., which lead me up side avenues and then those lead to more. So I've passed by lots of altarpieces, but never noticed the category, and will now keep my eye out for more. Thanks for alerting me it exists, it's a very good category. [Edit, I've just added it as a subcategory of 'Churches in art', which I'd tossed up recently and it only has 14 entries itself, so that's another one in need of population.] Randy Kryn (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for recent additions! Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, will try for more. Wikipedia needs all the altar time it can get (to pray for the spirit of Sanger-like neutrality)! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

culture of peace[edit]

Hi Randy, Not having heard from you since early in the year, I submitted the culture of peace page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adams1peace/Culture_of_peace) and it was promptly rejected. Help!Adams1peace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Adams1peace, I'd forgotten about this, and also thought somewhere along the way that you'd published it awhile back. Yes, it needs work (but I'm not going to do it alone, I'll do some formatting) and now reads like an essay, so the reviewer was right. Wikipedia pages are encyclopedic in nature, and follow an encyclopedia's formula. I'll bounce it around a little, thanks again for reminding me. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some help, thank you. Adams1peace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
started some editing, won't do it all at once so if anyone wants to also jump in and help as well (an interesting topic and editor). will leave my comments on your talk page now, left one a few minutes ago, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Culture of peace page[edit]

Hi Yopienso, and aside from the noise from both of us over at the Tolstoy page, you did mention that we might be able to work together on a topic. May I suggest that both of us edit and polish the Culture of Peace draft page discussed in the section above. It's a United Nations project, and the editor who started the article and runs some of the project, Adams1peace, seems to be very involved in the overall concept. But I had a hard time shaping what he had written into an encyclopedic article, maybe because I haven't wrapped my head around the concept as yet, and still have some questions. Such as, is the Culture of Peace active now? Is it meant to transform the world or just give it some more options? What is its overall purpose and how far have they got to accomplishing it or some of it? What's their next step? So maybe it's me just not grasping how it is designed and where it's heading. Would you mind having a look at it and seeing if it's something you'd like to work on? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years![edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt, you make a lot of editors smile. Appreciated. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

...on reaching 100,000 edits! Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. But subtracting things like edit corrections, playing on talk pages, 700+ additions of the zoo template on pages which were then reversed, adding a couple of hundred See also listings (from the list of vegans and list of vegetarians pages) which were also reversed, the removal of hundreds of my added Wikiquote and Wikisource links on templates, plus many more throw-away edits, and that whittles the "real" 100,000 down quite a bit. At some point I'll cross the real 100,000 threshold, but will not know it when I do! Appreciated though, thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If we didn't count reverts, reverted edits, talk arguments, etc., we'd probably not be half way there. But that's part of the business. Glad to see you liked my "share the credit" edits. Here's another thing that might ought to be mentioned. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done, and yes, edits are more than the sum of their parts. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking something like "With Larry Yaeger and Brandyn Webb of Apple, Lyon developed methods for handwriting recognition using multilayer perceptrons and related methods." But thanks either way. We got quite a few patents there, too. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
All greek to me, but a good idea. Will look at it later. North Koreans will soon be going to Vegas on a regular basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Gordon Jr.[edit]

Randy, that character you're poking at doesn't even have any accessible sources showing the comma. Why are you so sure it's required? The DC Comics site often omits the comma. Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be being talked out at Mandruss' talk page. MOS:JR is for real people, not fictional characters. This was worked out a couple of years ago. Fiction is fiction, and the names are created by the authors. I don't know this character personally (and I can't - since he's fiction), so I'm not sure if the created character has a comma in his name. I just know the page used to have a comma and it was moved in the midst of the comma wars and hasn't been corrected since, which is all I'm asking for, and I'd think it's up to someone to do an RM to removed the comma (which would be unlikely, since the character is fictional). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying fictional implies comma? Seems like an odd concept. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited House of George Sand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consuelo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

minor edits[edit]

Your edits are showing extensively on my watchlist, and, while they are not marked as minor edits, many of them are. This makes it impossible to filter the watchlist by substantive article change versus small edits. The template for this says:

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Thanks, Outriggr (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Outriggr. You are the first, I think, to bring this up to me, and I will certainly try to ease your watchlist. Nice to see I'm overlapping and we're improving the same pages (for me, in many cases, minorly). I think I lost the "minor edit" habit when someone asked me not to mark some edits as minor, quite a few years ago. From then on I just stopped marking what I'd consider "minor" edits because I thought that somebody may object. I'll try to be bold and "minor" again. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Apparently this is about categories. You didn't mention categories in your note above, but soon brought them up at Help talk:Minor edit#revisiting categorization as a minor edit, where I've explained why I don't consider category edits minor edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion‎[edit]

I agree with Outriggr above, and urge the same (ie get in the habit of marking such edits as minor - ie, its certainly very valuable work, but we trust you and dont need to review), but its not a big deal in the scheme of things. Your edit to the Bacon triptych was well done; the years are creeping by and these days are these days no more :( Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, I have been doing the minor markup a bit more since Outriggr (check out his user page now, an advocate for the minor edit). I probably won't mark category changes as minor outside of hotcat (which doesn't mark them as minor), but the italics and some other things certainly can go further into the minor realm. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, to be clear this is not to distract from the value of your work here. I think DilletantiAnonymous, who currently occupies about 70% of my watchlist, may adopt a similar technique (and you too guys really need to work share). I have faith in both of ye; but minor edits flags pls. ps: re Ouriggr, don't worry I watch his user page very closely, as there is often a lot of wisdom and reading of the tides there. Best. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, thanks, and thanks for the support. Yes, DilletantiAnonymous really is a prolific Wikipedian, and can really fill up templates when new or unrecorded pages are added. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ye are on the same path. I was very amused when you mentioned to John about those altar paintings, and described their discovery as finding a "swarm". Certainly apt, and I read from an anthropological POV, and why categorisation is so important. At the very least - Wiki is BIG and untamed, no one person really knows its nature or extent. My learning from that appreciation of vastness, and the sad fact that, here and as in life, people alas come and go for us; it has to be about content. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Momma said categories are like a box of choc-o-lates. I forget why. But putting artworks into various categories is only one of the things I play with here, although it has been an interesting endeavor as it takes me, or any editor, deep into Wikipedia's art collection. I wish there were more art editors creating pages, writers may not realize how many good pieces do not yet have articles. Even artists like Claude Monet have relatively few articles on their overall paintings, which is why editors like DAnonymous are so valuable to the art collection. Stubs turn into trees at some point. As I've been saying here and there, I think a big influx of professional writers and editors will emerge once Wikipedians win the Nobel Peace Prize (in 2024, give or take a few years) which will put a further and almost necessary stamp-of-approval on the project. What I've found is that vandalism on certain pages has gone way down without losing the number of views, so I think what's occurring is an overall acceptance of Wikipedia by the public. It's become as commonplace as a utility, and part of people's lives now. Talking about content, I do have another Monet stub in mind, so maybe I'll get to it today (or next year). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposing new additions to Louis XIII (cognac)[edit]

I saw you were active on the Louis XIII article about the cognac. I am reaching out to get your help to update the article. I added new content along with the third-party media references in this draft. How about taking a look?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was just editing about the film. Good luck on your additions. I see that you are a paid editor for the page, are they paying you in cognac? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Original research? Um no[edit]

Typical wedding pendant of the period for a well-to-do burger young woman, wearing the still fairly common, but going out of style Dutch figure-eight collar and the always common bridal stomacher, which would often be preserved as family heirlooms along with bridal gloves

Hi Randy, can you please explain this edit? I don't see why you concluded this was original research. Thx. Jane (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jane023, and thanks for asking. Please read the sentences I removed again. It goes off on a tangent without attribution, and then, after stating that she was possibly pregnant and died in childbirth (still no reference, almost like 20 Questions), we end up with the Wikipedia endorsed possibility that the figure in the painting is actually a corpse. Without reference. That comes pretty close to original research in my understanding of the term, if not crossing the line and already 100 meters down the road. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
p.s. Although it would make the Dracula mention more interesting. Hopefully a reference could be found, and the dress will mix more with the later on the page Dracula theme. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Well the dracula theme is obvious, since the designer was quoted as being inspired by the book and the painting is on the cover, so that is where the rest of the earlier comments on the unusual "backward" style is from. It is the only image in the whole book with a headdress like that. My comment about the pregnancy has to do with this unusual style (not just the headdress) and the fact that the dates would imply pregnancy as the solution to the puzzling lack of a bridal stomacher. No original research, just connecting the dots. As for the movie link, this is recorded, especially after you look at interviews of the designer talking about it, and that movie outfit on some other (copyrighted, but easily available thru web search) images. Jane (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
By Dracula I meant adding the thought that the subject of the painting was a corpse, which probably should be left out of the page unless a reference is located. I know nothing about the stomacher, so please add it back if it's encyclopedic. Thank you for the image you left, if all women dressed like that now it'd be a sight-to-see on buses and in restaurants. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

OK then I will update it when I get a chance. Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to setup lists for women's portraits on Wikidata, since all of these fashions are well-documented, but sadly not documented on Wikipedia (yet). You can scroll through women's fashions now by decade by looking at their painted portraits here: d:Wikidata:WikiProject Women/Portraits of women. I already had setup a list of pendants, which were generally husband & wife in wedding clothing. So this list shows you what the men were wearing through the centuries too. Best, Jane (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting lists and images, and valuable additions to the fashion pages. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deprod[edit]

Please note that if you want to deprod, as you did with Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England, you should add sources to show that it has notability. If not, it will be nominated for deletion. Many articles on paintings are very poorly sourced, with nothing to demonstrate notability, and may need to be deleted. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg[edit]

Hi Randy Kryn. Since you were a participant in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 27#File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg, I thought you should know about c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

:-)[edit]

Hello RK I hope you are well. This is marvelous. I do have a slight rib muscle pull from laughing too much but I am happy to live with it. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 23:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's what they call a rib tickler. Thank you, and I lol'd too (and did so again rereading it just now). I hope all is well with you too, and hopefully we'll meet sometime. Enjoy. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by John Peter Russell[edit]

Generally we try to avoid starting categories like this with only one member. They serve no useful purpose, & just clutter things up. It's better to wait until there are at least say three. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and as you were sending this I was leaving a note on your talk page about this and got an edit conflict. Russell is an Australian National Treasure, and more articles on his work are surely needed. I started the category thinking there'd be more, so it was an incorrect assumption to begin the category early. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Custom WikiProphet Award[edit]

Leo Petroglyph, human stick figure.jpg Custom WikiProphet Award

Custom WP:WIKIPROPHET award for uttering this prophecy. PaleoNeonate – 13:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you PaleoNeonate. Was just trying to set a passionate editor on the road to their personal vision of what Wikipedia is capable of producing for their culture and for humanity. It's interesting that the road to that ultimate vision, a vision that, as our logo predicts, is itself never finished, is being trod and set in movable but solid stone every second by an editor or three. Nice stick figure, drawn on a cave wall, I assume, by a knowledge-sharing predecessor and Wikipedian-in-spirit. Either that or a self-portrait of someone looking for a good buffet. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Choltitz[edit]

Hi, see my reply at User_talk:Túrelio#File:Dietrich_von_Choltitz_liberation_of_Paris.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not be an overzealous editor.[edit]

The article on the Sermon on the Mount has multiple sentences that are duplicated, word for word. Also, sometimes articles, when several different people each add a sentence, or two, thoughts can end up fragmented. This lack a coherency can make an article more difficult to read than it needs to be. Because of repetition & disjointedness, this article needs cleanup.

I described the edits I made. You chose not to believe me, without checking to see if what I said were true. When reverting the article, you typed things that were blatantly false. Please make sure of your facts before making spurious claims.

If you were to take the time to see what I did in this article you will see that I moved things from one part of the article to other parts of the article for some coherence. I only deleted duplications & slightly changed some wording in a few places for the sake of readability. It took much longer for me to edit the article that it would have if I had written a few paragraphs from scratch, because I was so careful, careful not to remove any information, only duplication. You claimed I removed a lot of information. This is untrue. Also, I did not add information, as you claimed I did. The information in the article remains the same.

Fewer people are editing for Wiki than in years past. A couple years ago in a news interview, someone working for Wiki says one of the main suspected reasons is over zealous individuals that are making it difficult for people trying to contribute.

Contrary to your inaccurate conjecture, I took a considerable amount of time to rewrite in a coherent way that was very careful not remove any information. If you do not like my edits, do not simply revert because you cannot be bothered to actually take a serious look at what has been done, but edit my edits to your heart's content. If you can improve my edits, please edit away. Please edit as much as you see fit.

If something needs to be fixed then fix it, or at the very least, leave it alone. Making unfounded claims based on hunches, then simply hitting the revert button, because you cannot be bothered to take a look at what has been done is unhelpful. Gregogil (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the note. I reverted your edits after reading them because you claimed not to add anything, but you added emphasis on some topics and other additions. I then added the accurate information about the fasting in the desert, which added much needed context into the existing edits about "a short time" into the ministry after the baptism. The fasting and contemplation in the desert was the key to the Sermon, the knowledge realized then shared with the public. My apologies for upsetting you and your work, but by me following up, and you following up on me, that's what gets things done. Good to meet you, and I'll take a close look at the page again later. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In looking at the page I'm seeing that my major mistake was reverting your edit, because what I did in my edits was address your concern, which I left in with a rewording, and then added information which I saw was missing, and I thought your concern about the redundancy was met, and hopefully further good additions made. So my apologies for my zealousness in jumping to a revert instead of a new edit, and thanks for the nudge in a good direction. A couple of things more. The revert discussion probably should have been on addressed on the Sermon on the Mount talk page, and I would have suggested a slightly less accusatory slap-with-a-trout which reads to me like defensive language, and again my apologies if my edit made you feel like that. But since it's here, and one or two other editors may see it, it's a good time to say that the SotM article is in need of good additions and editing, and a thank you to Grgogil for bringing that to light. It's a historically, philosophically, and other 'ly's important topic and an article which should look like a feature article seems presently in not even close to good article shape, information wise. At a minimum a large paragraph should be included in the lede listing more of the important words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew, a lesson that was, incidentally, along with the U.S. Constitution, the two pillars of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Thanks for nudging me to put my attention on the page again, and I hope you continue to polish in language that you feel is encyclopedic and accurate, and if we or others disagree it can be talked out on the article talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve The Seine at Argenteuil[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Randy Kryn, thanks for creating The Seine at Argenteuil!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wassily Kandinsky[edit]

Great work on Template:Wassily Kandinsky.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyTheTiger, and coming from a master template creator like yourself, much appreciated. Not a large template, but I'm assuming more articles on his works will be written, and I tried to catch his range of accomplishments in art movements. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

McKinley[edit]

Regarding this edit, have you checked the source to ensure it is covered there, so that additional sourcing is not necessary? Not that I doubt the memorial is there, I've seen it myself. Just trying to keep the sourcing straight in a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. More sources on the page will be needed, as the one is from a 1908 Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine (my subscription ran out) without a copy (got the source from the sculptor's wife's article). Just wanted to get a source on the page so it could be published. Do you work on the McKinley information? I've thought in the past that a McKinley template would be a good addition, the only missing U.S. presidential templates from the 20th Century are McKinley and Harding, and maybe we can toss one up. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably just sourcing to whatever page the Ohio government has on the memorial is sufficient. Yes, Coemgenus and myself did much of the work to improve it to FA status. If someone would start the template, I could certainly insert the things I think should be in there. I'm fairly familiar with Harding, too as I did a fair amount of work there.--Wehwalt (talk)
Hello Wehwalt, just noticed that I didn't answer your reply. Yes, McKinley and Harding templates would be nice additions. I try to be comprehensive when I create a template, which I see as a detailed map of Wikipedia pages pertaining to the subject. These two important subjects are long studies which I've thought about templating, but haven't gone into as yet. Please let me know if either or both of the templates are started as well, and I'll be happy to add to them. Thank you for your work on the topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ron Stallworth photo[edit]

Randy, did you see the question at Talk:Ron Stallworth? It needs more eyes. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Leaving messages on my talk page[edit]

Next time please I would appreciate it if you were kinder in your wording of any concerns. I have tough alligator skin, but if you want me to take you seriously, please exercise more AGF and less judgement.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I seldom use such language, but your good faith deletions to many visual arts articles, done quickly, were of concern. I see you've deleted my comments, but hopefully you will take some of my criticism to heart. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

See[edit]

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Markipedia_1 and if you check all the contribs here if you want. It is refspam. Usually refspam is an academic spamming their papers into WP; this is the first time I have seen it with a major newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied at the linked discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Outdoor sculptures in Columbus[edit]

In case you're interested, I'm creating a list of outdoor sculptures in Columbus ahead of WikiConference North America. In short, there are very few Wikipedia articles about sculptures in Columbus, and no List of public art in Columbus, Ohio. So far, I'm adding works surveyed by Smithsonian's "Save Outdoor Sculpture!" program, and I hope to visit some of these sites during my visit. I plan to create some new Wikipedia articles as well. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. An ambitious project and a good list. To fill in the list you've compiled with Wikipedia pages that perpetual hole in the top of the globe logo may have to be enlarged. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice to meet you this past weekend! I hope you enjoyed the conference. Also, I'm starting to create new entries for sculptures listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sculpture/Columbus, Ohio. Take care! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to meet you too, and to meet many other editors and tech people. Your WikiProject of Columbus sculpture is probably one of the best things to come from holding the convention there. Working from nothing, you came up with the comprehensive list void of existing articles, and then began filling in those links and building up quite a collection of pages on sculptures in Columbus. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Are you the Randy I met briefly at the Wikimania reception Friday evening (Oct 19)? Atsme✍🏻📧 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No idea. If so, good to meet you again, but you may have met any one of several people using the user name Randy. Thanks, and enjoy editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, looking at your user page, maybe. Good to meet again. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure of it - you're the only Randy I met. 😊 Good to meet you again, too! Happy editing! Atsme✍🏻📧 23:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Good times at the conference. Mr. Bojangles' shoes were there too, in an exhibit case next to John Glenn's notes while taking his astronaut test. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Were you allowed to take pictures? Now I’ll be hearing that song in my head for the rest of the day! 🎹🎼😂 Atsme✍🏻📧 21:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I didn't take one of the shoes, just of an old sign advertising an asbestos collectors club ("Summer's the perfect time to round out your asbestos collection!") Should have taken one of the shoes. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Advertising the RFC[edit]

As you can see at [1], I have added my current favorite scan of the photo in question and advertised the RFC at several Wikiprojects. If you can think of others that might have an interest and provide more points of view, please feel free to advertise further. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Navigation template documentation[edit]

The summary that you changed is clearly reflected in WP:EXISTING. See the talk page. This discussion has been going on for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The language reads "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles". This allows for use of red links in templates. The change I've reverted, if it were a policy or a guideline instead of an essay-like page, would direct an inaccuracy not reflected on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Dinosaurs by Continent in bird articles?[edit]

I saw that you added {{Dinosaurs by Continent}} to the series "List of birds of CONTINENT" and added birds to the template. I understand the connection between birds and dinosaurs, but I don't really think this is helpful to the reader. After all, in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, we are all also fish. Why do you think that is a good idea? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Because it is accurate. Birds are dinosaurs, they are classified as such. To separate them from such a template it would have to be titled "Non-avian dinosaurs by Continent". Wikipedia calls what you are probably thinking of as a dinosaur "Non-avian dinosaur". Randy Kryn (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
You are right that it is accurate. My point is that it is not helpful. It would also be accurate to describe you and me as fish, but that would not be helpful. The consensus has been in bird articles that they are not described as dinosaurs. I don't think the reader of List of birds of Europe is helped by a template titled "Lists of Dinosaurs by Continent" because while birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are not birds. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Then the name of the template should be discussed, and maybe should accurately be changed to 'Non-avian dinosaurs per continent'. A 'Birds per continent' template could also be created. But until those two things occur, the template seems accurate in including the 'birds per continent' listings. It is not a "humans are fish as birds are dinosaurs" relationship. "Humans are primates as birds are dinosaurs" is a more accurate descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Dada[edit]

Hello Randy, I was thinking of creating Template:Dada when to my surprise it already existed (I had never seen it before), but it has nothing to do with the art movement Dada. Is there anything that can be done about that? Coldcreation (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A great idea, you've done some really good templates (edit: nice work on the See also of 'Cubism'). And I noticed recently that there is no 'Art Deco' template, and that sounds like an extensive one as well. Once you start up the Dada template you can ask for a non-controversial name change, and move the present template to 'Dada (band)'. If anyone objects it would have to go to a full RM, but it sounds non-controversial. Also you could just name the new template 'Dada (art)', because with templates the name doesn't really matter at all, the visible name does, and that would be 'Dada'. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see what I can do for Template:Dada, and good idea for a Template:Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And then there is Template:Art Nouveau. That one will have to be carved from a big log. To tell the story of Art Nouveau in a map would take someone more familiar with it than I am, in case you want to rev that one up too. With the Dada template those three would cover a lot of space. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Good call on Art Nouveau. Have you seen Template:Renaissance? Many of these templates need work. And many could be created, e.g., Template:Pop art does not exist. Coldcreation (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Pop art too? Another one to rise from the dust. If you or someone starts these off I could add in once I wrap around a mental map, and maybe these should all be listed on the wikiproject visual arts talk page to see if any other template-minded editors get enthused. I've never looked at the Renaissance template, thanks. And especially thanks for all the good edits these last few days on the Cubism template, nice work. Maybe a list of which major artist's still need templates would be a related listing (many of these are held up from being created under the unwritten rule-of-five-links for templates). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice work, at least to my limited mental map of the topic. I moved the band to {{Dada (band)}}, which should make room for your primary template. Minor edits come to mind, such as Publications could be added as a section of your template, and an italic run, and maybe dates and the addition of things like Breton's 1920 play. It will be a good addition to the visual arts template collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, and good ideas too, thanks. I will post now. Coldcreation (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: When I try posting the template at Dada it shows the Dada (band) version, maybe because of the redirect, not sure. Coldcreation (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Just cleaned up the links to the band templates new name, so the redirect should be clear for change now. Would a copy and paste over the redirect work? If not either a non-controversial RM request or an admin with knowledge of how to replace a named template's redirect would do it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done with code removal. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Great, it worked!!! Coldcreation (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed, again[edit]

Hello again. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of German presidents#Requested move 6 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Template usage[edit]

Hi. Have you discussed the usage of your newest templates with other users, and can you give me a link to that debate? I'm just saying that when we design templates for all important figures in Women's suffrage (you added templates there for Pankhurst, Stanton and Anthony, that's only three prominent US figures), we will have a long wall of templates for thousands of prominent women's leaders, world wide. In my opinion, that particular template has only merit to be included in articles that are directly related to Anthony (via article name or because she is featured throughout the article). The same goes with all open-theme templates. --Enyavar (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've done only four templates for women's suffrage leaders: Emmeline Pankhurst, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul (three US and one UK). All of those are on the 'Women's suffrage' page, which seems appropriate, but if you have concerns maybe that talk page is the proper place to discuss this. Those four will probably be the extent of my production of individual templates for women's suffrage leaders, although there are several other major activists whose templates could be worked up and used on the page. If that list gets too long (and remember that collapsed templates take up very little vertical room, those four take up app. six lines) then there is the navbox cage option such as used for "Associated artists" on the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood page. But individual templates for those four, and their unarguable major contributions to the subject, seem appropriate. Thanks for your concern though, good to see editors protecting important topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for not condemning or dismissing my concerns. In my opinion, the template can and should list as many articles as possible if they are relevant to understand a person's achievements. But if the same person is less central for the understanding of some articles, the template doesn't need to appear in these articles. For example, neither US president nor White House include the Jefferson template (or that of any other president), but the template includes these two articles. --Enyavar (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC) a
Enyavar, I will gladly condemn, dismiss, and draw and quarter your concerns at a later date (rain check?). Good point about the US President page, and it'd be nice if there was a template-of-templates that could list and link all of the president templates (there are quite a few to go if you are a template creator). The difference could be argued that Women's suffrage was gained originally as an activist movement, and that the major movement leaders' templates would be appropriate for the page. Other movements have leader templates (Gandhi, King, etc), and I didn't place the templates on the overall Suffrage page but linked on the women's suffrage article. As for the Jefferson White House template link, it concerns his design of the White House Colonnades which, if they had an article, and maybe should, would contain the template. I can see your point of view though, and if the template collection grows too large would at that point revisit the dreaded navbox cage remedy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

list of rail accidents[edit]

When you moved List of rail accidents to 4-digit titles, it looks like you missed List of rail accidents (2000–09). Could you do that one also. I can't do it myself because there is a redirect at List of rail accidents (2000–2009) MB 01:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't move it either. Maybe if the two of us lift one end apiece we can hoist it up there. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I just assumed you were a File Mover. I'll put in a technical move request then. MB 13:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the assumption. I can move a file cabinet if that helps. Nah, I don't have any tools or positions except for hotcat. The request is a good idea, thanks for following up. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Upper & Lower case dispute.[edit]

If you can think of a central place for an RFC? I'd do that & link it to high traffic articles (like Trump), to get awareness of the overall inconsistency of the topic. Something to get the community involved. I don't care which way it goes, just as long as it's applied consistently. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As I mentioned, this has been discussed and RfC'ed and poked with a stick so many times this last year that there may even be a moratorium on it. Keeping it at the Trump talk page would be interesting and add to the entertainment value, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

How to use Google Ngrams properly[edit]

Others have pointed this out to you before, repeatedly, but I'll do so again. For capitalization-related matters, you have to exclude title-case headings, titles, captions, and other material presented in that format. This is done by prefixing lower-case common words to the search term, usually "the" and "a"/"an", and also trying it as a plural if the issue involves confusion of a class of somethings and a specific something that share a name or part of a name. This is how to do it right. Continuing to just plug in something like "Apollo Lunar Module,Apollo lunar module" as the search strings is going to be willful sourcing falsification. It is not credible that you do not actually understand this by now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice it's about the same result as the one I listed? Apollo Lunar Module is the most favored capitalization in both of our results. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be having some analysis problems here. 1) The lower case constructions add up to almost the exact same about as the upper-case ones. 2) The lower cases ones for generic phrasing like "an Apollo lunar module" and "Apollo lunar modules" are the only ones attested at all. 3) This necessarily means that the upper-case ones are bloated with false positives for more specific phrases that are proper-name references to specific lunar modules of specific missions. 4) Our standard is to not apply capital letters when the sources do not do so consistently, so even your original, faulty N-gram was evidence against the very proposition you claimed it was evidence in support of.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this discussion is about an RM attempt to lower-case the title of Wikipedia's article Apollo Command and Service Module to Apollo command and service module. At the moment the attempt is probably at a no consensus. I see enough evidence to keep the title at its present upper-casing, especially with a new find a few hours ago of a recent NASA 50th year retrospective of Apollo 5 link, notice how 'Command Module' is upper-cased throughout, and then click on the links, where the golden NASA Apollo-era video can be seen. That said, what I gather from your comment above is that not only are you interested in lower-casing Apollo Command Module but are seeking to lower-case Apollo Lunar Module as well. The link I just left above (and I'll leave it here again) is to a NASA 50 year anniversary retrospective of the Apollo Lunar Module, upper-cased throughout,as it is in the NASA video and NASA documents. The 50th anniversary of the Moon missions will start in a few weeks with the Moon orbital flight of Apollo 8. I certainly will defend the upper-casing of these things, and remind you that since they have been long-term titles there is nothing wrong in defending such a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Randy, I agree with you that NASA's 50th anniversary celebration literature capitalizes just about everything that they never did back in the day. But does that mean we should, ignoring that last 50 years of usage? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems Gene Kranz, Flight Director of Apollo, capitalized everything back in the day too. Let me give you a hand moving the goalposts. This NASA page gives lots of links which seem relevant, I haven't checked any out yet but Apollo Moon mission fans (who doesn't like a good unprecedented what-I-did-on-my-Summer-vacation story) may enjoy clicking around in it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Randy, to search within such collections of html pages, use searches like this and this. The preponderance of lowercase "module" is clear. Also the caps in titles like we do per MOS:JOBTITLES: "Apollo 16 Lunar Module Pilot Charlie Duke" and such. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This is just more argument to emotion and argument to authority. "Someone might get mad if we don't do what NASA marketing materials are doing." Not a valid argument pattern here, ever, about anything. I'll repeat that whether some NASA materials ever capitalized these terms has never been questioned. The issue is that the preponderance of independent reliable sources do not, ergo Wikipedia will not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Since you are on my talk page, and that second and third sentence are quite weird ("Someone might get mad if we don't do what NASA marketing materials are doing". Do you honestly believe that's how I think? And who do you think it is who will get mad?). I'm not one of those characters around here who files complaints and tries to put fellow editors up on some kind of policy-laden charges, and believe in good faith and the right to free speech. I do get to wonder at your language though. Luckily, the result of the RMs, including the rights of disagreement held by editors who think that there is enough back-up material to keep the historic Apollo project names at their long-time stable titles, isn't your call. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, SMcCandlish is a bit off here. NASA is not the problem; they use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Then please notify NASA that someone is putting out upper-case features in their name. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I will. Obviously a web hacker gone rogue recently. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Randy, your shallow interpretation of n-grams has also created quite a mess that's keeping you busy now at World Heritage Site. I hope you'll help fix it back when we converge on agreeing with your original support for lowercase site instead of odd interpretation of n-grams on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just added this shallow interp ngram at the World Heritage Site move discussion. If you seriously want to do another weeks-months long round that's your right, but at least have a long at that ngram and maybe consider dropping the stick (or carving the stick). Talking of fixing the pages back, since you've changed the ones I've come across maybe you can put in an hour or so? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
If I put in an hour or so, it would be to go the opposite direction of what you're doing; nobody decided that the plural (which is clearly generic) should be capped. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
then we have this, another semi-okay worded ngram. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Which still very clearly shows that this term is not consistently capped in sources. Caps are optional here, so we use lowercase per MOS:CAPS. Why do the opposite of what UNESCO does? Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
These ngrams and this situation shows the weakness of the consistency language that a few editors adhere to as meaning "always". To lower case 'Site' in World Heritage Site, although statistical evidence shows it as the overwhelming common name, would be to purposely distort something on Wikipedia. This example alone should show that the word "consistently" for case-titles should be as antiquated as diffcaps, and put aside as quickly when not using the clear common name would end up in a misnaming. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:NCCAPS says always if I recall correctly. That's really the point. If sources show it's optional, we shouldn't cap. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Good at writing?[edit]

Randy, how are you at writing? See Talk:Apollo_8#Horrible_second_sentence where help is desperately needed; maybe we can agree. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Gave it a go. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You've been busy[edit]

Passed me up at list of active Wikipedians! Go! Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Playing in the fields of the Lord. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ngrams[edit]

Did you check this stat on kama sutra versus kamasutra cites in books? That includes secondary works on or inspired by Burton's edition (1885-1890 plus post-1950s). Thanks for the edit that incorporated both spellings. Happy holidays, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:DannyS712/RfC[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:DannyS712/RfC. This is the page where I have been drafting/planning an RfC about navboxes and icons. DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I really don't understand the page (if I spent some time with it I could decode it, but I'm thinking of other editors who will give it a glance over as an RfC and then move on), and it may be difficult to come to consensus on what seems to be a dozen or more questions at once. Maybe others will be more helpful, thanks for thinking of me about this. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What about now? I've made it slightly less confusing. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Herrick or Shakespeare: same diff[edit]

Regarding this (and thank you for that edit, incidentally!). Gather Ye Rosebuds While Ye May (Waterhouse painting 1908) makes no mention of Ophelia, and in fact directly contradicts the connection by saying Waterhouse was inspired by Herrick (and "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time" suggests no connection either). Do you happen to know whether there is any reason to assume it depicts Ophelia, or that it otherwise references Ophelia?

PS. If you're at all familiar with the visual arts, I suspect the "In art" section of References to Ophelia could do with a closer look. I have a nagging suspicion several of the works included there are just random ones that fit the theme rather than actual depictions of Ophelia. --Xover (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I added the link to References to Ophelia because the painting was in the Waterhouse section and I knew that it had an article, but did so without checking its original use for accuracy. The painting placed next to it on the page, which seems to be a study for the painting you mention, is named File:John William Waterhouse - 'Gather Ye Rosebuds,' or, 'Ophelia'.JPG, but I don't know where the 'Ophelia' name came from. Good find, and so you may be right that the image may be inaccurately placed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
My Google-fu may simply be too weak here, but as best I can tell, neither one of those is of Ophelia. Victorian Web cites Peter Trippi that Waterhouse made three versions of Ophelia, none of which are this painting. The caveat is that Trippi was probably writing before Gather Ye Rosebuds While Ye May was rediscovered. Nothing Google digs up even suggests any connection, so I'm going to go ahead and guess that the uploader on Commons actually added the "or, Ophelia") bit. In any case, absent a RS for the connection I'm going to go ahead and remove them from this article. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Nice work and research. And good "meeting" you. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

Christmas tableau.jpg Happy Christmas!
Hello RK,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you MarnetteD, and happy all of the holidays to you. Ho ho ho and all the best popcorn too. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons[edit]

The Virgin Mary and Five Standing Saints above Predella Panels Full.jpg Gothic Seasons Greetings MS M.493, fol. 28v edit.jpg
Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of cheer. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ceoil, and right back to you. It's been nice meeting you online here, and thank you for your large contributions to Wikipedia's - and the art world's - depositary of visual arts knowledge and appreciation. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Like wise. Have noticed you talk page contributions are very well informed, and speak of a wide taste. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Well thank you, I've been called worse. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Apollo 11 reviews[edit]

Would you be willing to do me a favour and have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/archive1 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Buzz Aldrin? I'm trying to get the Apollo 11 articles ready for the July 2019 anniversary, and time is short. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do so at some point soon. Thank you for taking on and seeing that project through. The historical importance of the Apollo events is almost inconceivable, and people hundreds of years in the future will look upon the early days of space exploration, and mankind's first trips off-planet and to the Moon, as extraordinary benchmarks of human development and exploration. I'm glad Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins are still around, and I hope they make it to the 50th in good spirits and health. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

WikiProject Zoo - newsletter No.3 -2018[edit]

Newsletter Nr 3, 2018-12-25, for WikiProject Zoo
WikiProject Zoo Logo.JPG

Wikiproject Zoo wish you a Happy New Year 2019[edit]

The activity within the project has been rather low this year, and therefore we want to tell you that any kind of help to develop the project further next year will be extremely valued, like meking some of the red links blue, and participating any categorizing or whatever you want!

Participation:

This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo, to everyone who added yourself as a member of the Wikiproject Zoo. This is the second such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages remove yourself from the mailing list here , and if consider yourself not active within the project, please remove yourself from member list here. For Wikiproject Zoo general discussions and suggestions, please use the project talk page.


Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Zoo coordinator Dan Koehl.

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Randy Kryn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Compliments of the season[edit]

Hi Randy, sorry if I got a little "frustrated" earlier on. I know we clash now and then, so I just thought I'd drop you a note wishing you all the best, and a good 2019 to you and yours. :) --woodensuperman 13:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and right back at you Woodensuperman. Our disagreements are certainly nothing personal, although they may look like it. You are one of the few editors who cares deeply about templates (navigational boxes), and improves them and keeps them honest on a regular basis. Template respect (can you believe how many editors want to hide them in those navbox cages, even if there are only a few collapsed templates on the page?) has a champion in you, and I hope that someday templates are publicized by Wikimedia and that the decision to block them from mobile users is reversed. Happiest of New Years as well to you and yours (I wrote that to a friend a few days ago and he questioned me about using "yours" as a PC ownership language violation!). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Replied.[edit]

I've replied to your inquiry. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Nations in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Klaatu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy 2019[edit]

The Hill Country (1913) by Walter Elmer Schofield, Woodmere Art Museum.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you BoringHistoryGuy, and the same back at you. Nice painting. I hope your 2019 is interesting, fun, healthy, and enjoyable. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Eden hat[edit]

Hello
I notice you closed the merge proposal here, per SNOW. That's fine by me, but can I suggest you close the discussion down as well, and archive it; that is partly why we were here last month on this. Thanks, Swanny18 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks Swanny18. I really don't know how to do all of that, and only closed it because it was an obvious snow and I thought the merge tags could be removed. I'm not educated in the official how, whys, or wheres of archiving such a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, well, just copy what I did last time (I can't do it, as I was involved in the discussion). Put the reason for the closure in bold, with a brief explanation, and rule it off, then put the archive templates at the top and bottom. There's some guidance at WP:MERGECLOSE if you get stuck (or ping me). Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I did something and it seems to have worked. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks good! Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Newly created good article?[edit]

Hello, I was going through the New Page Feed, and saw the listing for Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Phooey. I went to give it a new page review, and was surprised to see that it is already listed as a good article, despite being created today and having very few edits (the talk page only has one edit as of this writing). I may be missing a piece of this puzzle, but as far as I can tell this is a new article that didn't undergo a GA review but is now listed as a Good Article. Could you shed some light on how this happened? Thanks. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks Balon Greyjoy, that has to be a copy paste mistake. If it's on the talk page it's on one of the templates I transferred over from the Apollo 17 talk page. Will go check it out now. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I know you're an experienced editor, so I figured it was some accident vs. someone trying to subvert the GA review process. See you around on the spaceflight articles! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching it. If not who knows, it might have stayed there until mice fly! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Phooey) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Phooey.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I have reviewed and approved this new article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Balon Greyjoy}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Quantum Psychology[edit]

Hi Randy, I have no idea if I am posting this in the right place, so my apologies in advance. I posted this also on my talk page. I am in a process of learning wiki navigation! Thank you for the comments and review of the draft. I chose the name Quantum Psychology because it is generic and potentially embraces all branches of psychology and semantically it best describes the meaning of the merge of quantum physics with psychology. Perhaps a better term will emerge at some point. At this point this is a new direction for psychology and although few divisions started to emerge such as Quantum brain dynamics and Quantum cognition, and Quantum mind no umbrella term has been introduced. So, this term is meant as an umbrella term, like in quantum biology, or quantum computing, or quantum engineering, etc. Hope I answered, but feel free to tease the answers as it helps me also to clarify my thoughts. thanks Ivannaivama (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks. Will answer on your talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites[edit]

Hi, you recently moved a bunch of articles to different capitalization, "per discussion". Could you point me to that discussion? I'm involved with those articles quite a bit and I'd like them to be consistent (right now, not all names are). Thanks :) --Tone 14:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tone, and likely many more pages to go (I've been chipping away at them off and on). They were moved to lower-case after an RM at World Heritage Site lower-cased the term, but this initial decision was overturned at a couple of move reviews and upper-cased again. The Talk:World Heritage Site page has the history of these discussions in easy view. Thank you for your work on these pages, they are important additions to the encyclopedia's coverage of historical and geographically important sites. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Huh, what a discussion :) In any case, if you are planning to continue with renaming, Category:Lists of World Heritage Sites is a good place to check if you got all. --Tone 16:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorization of paintings[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you seem to be categorizing a lot of paintings, but it seems to me that you are vastly overcategorizing them. I know that this kind of detailed categorization is common on Commons, but on enwiki, the intention of categories is to group articles by "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" (text from intro to WP:Categorization).

For example, we have a category Category:Dogs in art, but you seem to include every painting which has a dog somewhere in it, no matter how insignificant. Things like A Landscape with a Ruined Castle and a Church, The Garden of Love (Rubens), Musical Party in a Hall ... really don't belong in that category, which should be reserved for things like The Artist's Wife and His Setter Dog or Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash, art which really is about the dog, not just having a dog in it somewhere. The same applies to other similar categories of X in art of course.

Could you please stop adding artworks where the dogs (or other X) are not an essential, defining element? If possible, it would be nice if you cleaned out the categories and removed the ones you added too all-inclusive as well. Fram (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Fram. Thanks for pointing out some of the major questionable entries, I've removed the dog and sheep categories from the landscape and dogs from The Garden of Love. Musical Party in a Hall, on the other hand, seems a keeper for the dog, which is a dominant part of the right side of the painting. There are other paintings which I've over categorized, and I've learned to pass over many without adding categories. Yet the "project" of giving the Wikipedia art collection categories on subjects is now accessible to writers, readers, and, in this case, dog and art enthusiasts, who may appreciate having a comprehensive chronicled collection. If someone writes a book on "Dogs in art", for instance, they now have a great place to start, hopefully one of the best either on-line or in print, which is one of the main reasons I've been adding these listings.
I don't work on Commons, unless an attempt to remove a good painting is undertaken by someone. Sticking to the dogs in art category, such a discussion has been had before regarding the inclusiveness (not directed at me at that time but an overall discussion) and, as another visual arts editor, Another Believer (who would be a good addition to this topic, which should probably be on the WikiProject visual arts talk page instead of here) pointed out at the time, the size of the paintings becomes a factor. Many questionable inclusions become more obvious when imagining standing in front of a good-size painting and seeing the dog in question quite large and detailed. This is one of those areas where editors point-of-view is different. Your suggestion of limiting the 'dogs in art' category to just major paintings focused on the dog is one way of looking at the scope of a category, and in that case we'd have, at most, maybe twenty, twenty-five listings and that's it. But in seeing dogs as a prominent and, yes, defining part, of most of the paintings now included, we are able to offer the public a collection likely among the best of its kind. That's been my motive on this.
If you look at my edits I've slowed down on adding categories to paintings, mainly because I and others have done a good job of creating the existing collections. But, for example, I added to today's featured picture the prominent dogs, horses, Diana, and Cupid, which had been missed in the categorizations. Before this gets totally wall-of-texty, thanks for putting my attention on some of the examples which even in my point-of-view are too overcategorized. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Someone looking for "X in art" would be better served with Commons, which has much more paintings than we will ever have, and much more such detailed categorization than we normally provide, per our categorization policy. Furthermore, while you may serve the few people looking for all paintings with dogs in, you are making life a lot harder for those people looking for paintings where dogs are an essential part. The problem with this kind of categorization is also that is nearly endless, you can then categorize still lifes by every kind of fruit, animal, flower, ... in it, with categories for all kinds of vessels these are displayed in, and so on. "Trees in art" will be a nearly endless category.
Size of the painting seems hardly relevant, having a dog as an accessory, an element which fills an empty space, livens up the work a bit, but plays no essential role in the end, is something we shouldn't categorize no matter if the painting is 10cm by 10cm and the dog is 1cm high, or the painting is 3m by 5 m and the dog is 50cm high.
Looking at The Banquet of the Officers of the St Adrian Militia Company in 1627, you can add it to categories for "hats in art", "flags in art", "swords in art", "windows in art", "glass in art", "drinking in art", "conversation in art", "groups of twelve people in art", "sashes in art", "tables in art", "tablecloths in art", "beards in art", ... All of these are as prominent as or more prominent than the dog in that painting. You mention today's featured picture; categorization for Cupid and Diana is logical, for dogs or horses is overkill. Fram (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Good catch on the dog in Banquet. I had looked at that one before for 'Flags in art' but didn't know if they were actual country flags or limited banners. "category:Food and drink in paintings" exists, a good category for a banquet painting. "Hats in art" or "Sashes in art" don't exist as far as I know, but arguably they would be relevant for someone wanting to focus on styles of hats or sashes throughout history, as paintings are the essential valuable cultural record of fashion in a time before photographs. I don't work on Commons, a separate project, but want to bring Wikipedia further to its full potential, and see a good healthy categorization of a topic. We see the dogs and horses in Diana and Endymion differently, as they are prominent as well as essential parts of the story as symbols of the subjects they represent, Diana and Endymion, and the overall background hunting and shepherding themes in the image (notice I didn't add "Hunting in art", as it is too tangential, so I do consider limits and not just adding things without thinking if they would fit. We just have different mental maps of the topics). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
But most of the paintings in the cats fail WP:Categories / WP:Overcategorization quite badly. They add categories for topics not mentioned in the article, not essential for the subject, not commonly attributed with the subject in reliable sources... They are categorized by you (and probably others) because it might be interesting to someone. Advent and Triumph of Christ is not about the horses or the sheep, these are not defining or even important aspects of the paintings any more than "windows in art" or "roofs in art" would be defining characteristics. On the other hand, in The Day the Wall Came Down the horses are an esential part of the work, so here the cat is appropriate. The distinction of course isn't always easy to make, but it should be a lot more restrictive than it is applied now. Fram (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The category standard for artworks is, arguably, extended more than for other topics, and is often correctly used as a subcategory of larger topics. A good example of how you and I have different viewpoints is in your mention of horses in Advent and Triumph of Christ (and you seem correct about the sheep, which I've removed) where, in my view, the scope of the horses appears as an extremely prominent and important part of the work. Blow it up a little (and just a small enlargement shows the horse theme) and imagine standing in front of the full-size semi-large painting (yes, size does matter, to coin a phrase) as you view the horses. Researchers looking for horses in art would appreciate this listing in the category. Hopefully others can join this discussion, shall it be moved to the visual arts talkpage?, and I'll have to sign off for awhile as I work up a template and break for eating (real life food and drink experience). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Art researchers really shouldn't be using Wikipedia :-) In any case, you seem to go with the "it's clearly visible" argument, which would be good if I argued for verifiability. But the question is: have the horses in that painting received significant attention, do multiple sources mention it as an important aspect of that work? Any detail in a work can (and often will) be mentioned in exhaustive descriptions, but that doesn't mean that every detail is essential or defining. That's why I gave the examples of "windows" and "roofs", which are probably even more omnipresent in this painting. This painting isn't about horses, and would work as well if everyone was on foot. They are decoration (in the best sense of the word). Mind, the categroy "books in art" is a lot more misplaced still for that painting, it's almost a game of "Where's Wally" to find the book.
I don't think having this conversation solely on a visual arts page is the best idea, they might be a rather partisan audience. It's better to have wider input, so perhaps a general page about categorization, or a village pump? Fram (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right about 'Books is art' in Advent, which I just removed, and which might be a good compromise: a "'Where's Wally' WP:WHERESWALDO rule - if you have to really search for it then it ain't it, per tangential". Those horses are a good example. To me they seem very prominent and essential in the story of the painting, and thanks for putting attention on this painting, I haven't spent much time with it and it's quite interesting. The horses seem to be the conduit to take the viewer from scene to scene, up and down, and from left to right. That entire painting is an example of a pre-photograpy film. But how about a 'Wheres Waldo' WP:WHERESWALLY rule, defining as tangential things someone would have to conduct a good-sized search for, but would find and fit into and further define the story, as probably the artist intended, on a casual but good search. And thinking about it, I'm liking more and more your idea of a 'Hats in art' category. Much of the entire history of hats, pre-photography, is evidenced and surmised (i.e., answering the oft-asked question "at what angles did men wear their hats in the 16th century?") by paintings and sculptures. [Edit:And in this one it probably should be subcategorized by century, historically important] Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
"Everything" pre-photography is evidenced by art, that's not reason to start a category. You are misusing the category system and not following the policies in place, for rather unclear or unlikely reasons. First get policy changed, then start creating and populating more of these categories: not the other way around please. Fram (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with creating a category "Hats in art" made up of subcategories "Hats in 17th century art" and so on? If the category name is clear then where does a problem lie? How does that break policy? Serious questions, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What's going on[edit]

@Carptrash: started the article on Munson 15 years ago. @Lockley: is his old friend and co-author. Munson wrote a series of 16 newspaper columns about her career in 1919, which Lockley has accessed online, and the pair are adding and/or discrediting works based on her own writings. Lockley has also accessed many newspaper articles about Munson, that are now footnoted in the article. Don't know when their research will be done, but I'm sure it will be of a professional level. I mostly sit back and tinker with the table.
Thank you for your kind words. We're having fun and making progress. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like quite the page and editing team, and I did decide to take a look at the progress. Audrey Munson is one of the largely unsung major figures of 20th century art, it's good to see her page getting the full attention of some extremely proficient Wikipedians. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
And if you look at the charts that @BoringHistoryGuy: has created it is stretching the term "tinkering" to new limits. Carptrash (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course, none of this would happen except for @BoringHistoryGuy:'s hypnotizing us somehow. And constructive good humor, much appreciated. Audrey Munson's life certainly is an opportunity to take a slow boat through the swampy newspapers of the 1910s and 1920s, and that whole era of publicity / opinion formation, based on a strange and sometimes icky set of virtues and judgments. She was a creature of publicity & hanging on to her star, I think that's pretty clear. The thing about her campaign to find the physically perfect man and marry him -- that was a weeks-long campaign, of course there's a publicist under that pile of dung. And those newspapers, grossly racist, classist, sexist, whoo wee. That whole context is instructive. And we have yet to document Miss Munson's setting barns on fire, so there's more to do... --Lockley (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I salute the editing team. Nice work and shows the strength of Wikipedia collaboration. If she was born a little earlier they would have pinned the Statue of Liberty on her too. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chimp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chimpanzee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)