User talk:Randy Kryn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Kalakaua Supreme Court.jpg

[edit]

–––. How to color outside the lines on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn 12:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The best vandal edit in the world (and note the one-time use red-link name) Randy Kryn 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This one is always interesting, seeing and listening to Wikipedia edits as they occur. Randy Kryn 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

Hi,

I have a photo of my dad, but I can't figure out how to add it to his page.

Dan O'Keefe — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanOKeefe (talkcontribs) 05:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Picasso[edit]

Hi Randy, you might want to comment here: [1], thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-0[edit]

I invite you to the ongoing RFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill, Jr.[edit]

As you suggest, WP:FILM alerted here. And thank you for adding the WP:COMMONSENSE perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas Randy Kryn!!
Hi Randy Kryn, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will drink (or something) to your health, many times. Randy Kryn 15:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year[edit]

Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated, thank you Soham321, and the same to you and yours. Randy Kryn 22:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Randy Kryn![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Davey2010, and the same to you and yours. Nice fireworks, in 2117 we should be able to leave real fireworks on talk pages (which will be called 'firewords' patent pending). Randy Kryn 14:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit[edit]

at Revolutionary‎ and would like to draw you into the discussion about who belongs (and who does not) on the list of notable revolutionaries and see what thoughts you have. ABC order is another discussion for another day. Carptrash (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Carptrash, but no, I don't know the names or have much attention on a page like that. The main people in the American Revolution, all of them should make such a list. But the ones I removed, Dr. King, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Bayard Rustin, simply do not fit the term, and I explained my reasoning for removing King on the talk page., and may as well copy it here too. Back in a minute and will copy it right below this reply. Randy Kryn 23:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The original note starts here, which I also copied from another talk page: (copied and slightly edited from another talk page) No, Dr. King or his colleagues should not be formally listed as revolutionaries. Although their movement has been called the 'Second American Revolution' the movement was doing nothing more than dialoguing with the nation to obtain the principals and guarantees already existing in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The revolution had already occurred, the nation's laws and people just hadn't caught up to it yet. King, Bevel, and the rest put words and actions into reminding the public, the courts, and the politicians what those constitutional guarantees were, and asked them to get about the business of implementing them. Which they did. Randy Kryn 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC) (recopied, Randy Kryn 23:23 January 2017 (UTC)

Heads up people[edit]

Saverland v Newton. Now you know. Randy Kryn 15:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

why remove justia link from lead in to case (Bauer)[edit]

why remove justia link from lead in to case (Bauer) ? -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi PraeceptorIP. Sorry, I don't know which edit you're referring to. I was probably doing an italics run on case law, let me know if I made a mistake, thanks. Randy Kryn 19:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, Jn. 4, 2017. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I see, there was an outside link in the first mention of an article, so I took that out. The first mention is probably the worse place for an outside link, which are usually listed in External links, as they are likely to get pulled eventually. When I do edit runs I very seldom find an outside link in the first mention, and have removed a few of them. Don't know if there's a policy or guideline on it, but I've seen so few of them that either other editors pull them as well or they just don't get outside-linked very often. Randy Kryn 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
1. Could you tell me how to italicize the title? 2. It is helpful to the reader of a case to get the link at the beginning of the Article. Some case write-ups do that. So I would like to put that cite back in there, perhaps to the whole case cite ( [www.whatever xx U.S. xx (xx)] ) or else as a <r e f> footnote. Thanks, Randy. - PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Or do both, and add it to External links as well. Easy to italicize most titles, the code and the simple term italic title (with parenthesis around it) will do it. Look at the code at the beginning of most italicized articles. Today I began a case law italics run back in the 1700s and am up to 1870, and found a lot of case law pages not italicized (as well as first mentions and other in-page italics fixes). Learning and making mental maps seem to be the main personal benefits of italic runs, which I do to professionalize the encyclopedia and give stylized encyclopedic respect to the topics of the entries being italicized. Randy Kryn 01:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Randy. I don't understand how to italicize title. I went to Bauer and looked at the EDIT, which starts with the Infobox. I couldn't find any italic title in the Editing Area. I gather from what you said that it is somewhere, perhaps in the Infobox, but I couldn't find it. Could you please spell this out in more detail for me? In particular, how do you CREATE an article with an italic heading, say when you click on a red (no such page) reference in another WP article or after searching for a case title and reaching an invitation to create a page with that name (in red)? - PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, italics is a grueling business (smiley face here). Check out the code on Corbett v Corbett, the top coding is the italics code. Pages will not have them when created, just add that code. There are other pages which will have a mixed italics-and non-italics, their title can be partially italicized, check out the code on the page List of games in Star Trek, for example. Thanks for your persistence and interest. Randy Kryn 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sesame template[edit]

About the Sesame Street nav template:

  • I think it would be a good idea to make a group for "Amusement parks and rides," since there are four articles under that category.
  • I also think the Comics group should be taken off, since only one article remains there. The comic strip article can go under Related.

I know you're not an admin or anything, but you've been making some reasonable updates to the template so I thought I'd ask you what you think. RightFoalPowerWire (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, and thanks. I like your user page. The comic strip idea makes sense in Related as long as it's the first or second item. I'm biased, so not the editor to ask on the other, and I dislike it when I find commercial links in templates. I know the rides are related, in a way, but each individual product in their promotion-line (dolls, mugs, beach towels, etc.) could eventually have a page and would we have to include all of those? Good meeting you. Randy Kryn 19:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

italic title[edit]

You can italic just about every one of these if you want to. Category:United States patent case law - PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Momma always said italics are like a box of choc-o-lates. Randy Kryn 01:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Did them, and that led to a good tangent on distributing the List of pioneers in computer science page. PraeceptorIP, from checking the history of many patent case law pages I can see you've spent a productive time adding to Wikipedia's collection on the topic. Nice work. Randy Kryn 18:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy. It's probably not a good idea, however, to italicise case as in Peninsular Button-Fastener Case. It would maybe be better to say: Peninsular Button-Fastener Case or case. Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hollerith[edit]

His name appears in multiple WP articles. Those linked from the article have additional content, Hollerith related details not contained in the Hollerith article. As best I can tell, you are linking to text that is but a one or two line summary - text that provides NO additional info for the reader. Why send the reader on a useless link? 73.71.159.231 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Lists like this are regularly linked to See also sections on articles. They are of great interest to many readers, and provide a map to the subject, this one to the subject of pioneers in computing. The majority of these kind of lists I've seen give only brief summaries of the topics and individuals, yet they give a wide and interesting overview, and since they are on all of the pages of the articles listed will bring more readers to each individual article. Researchers investigating the pioneers of computing may reach the page through several means, and one of the main ones is from the See also sections. Make sense? Thanks for asking, that doesn't happen as often as you'd think. Randy Kryn 19:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice[edit]

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Chicago 7 on Timeline of 1960s counterculture[edit]

Hey Randy, wondering if you might have time to review and perhaps add a few entries on Chicago (8 and) 7 to the timeline. I see you set up the template. Or simply share thoughts, as I know your have a lot of on your WP plate. Thanks and Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I am all for discussion, and I'm completely willing to discuss the "confines" or date scope of this subject. It's completely open for discourse! I have struggled with it myself, as it is not really academically defined, as to dates. But I thought the concept of noting events well in advance would spare the reader long explanations further down the list. As you know, any suggestions are always welcome. Note: CFCF seems to be motivated by recent politics and has some sort of personal issue with the "1984" book entry; he keeps reverting. He's been blocked many times, so for that editor to tag the entire page as non-neutral is a simply a disruptive nuisance in my view. PLEASE let me know if you think the page is biased in any way. The goal should be to "walk" people through the crazy era, with hopefully well-cited and truly notable events every step of the way. Thoughts? Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I love the deep-timeline, as long as it stays in context. I was serious about adding the constitution and bill of rights, then maybe the results of the civil war on the constitution and bill of rights. I really haven't spent enough time on the page to make a map in my mind of the overall flow, so I can't comment on neutrality or bias, and will read it again at some point with that question in mind. You not thinking it's biased is a good indication that it isn't. Did the editor explain why he or she thought it was biased? Randy Kryn 00:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, those documents certainly came into play later in the era, didn't they?:) I'm open, so let's improve the page! On the other issue, that "editor" is a "slash and burn" type who never discusses anything. He has no interest in consensus about anything, unless he's about to be (or is) blocked again, at which point he suddenly becomes very friendly.
Will get back to it sometime soon, I'm surprised that thirty or so editors aren't working on the page. Will continue discussion there at some point about the early documents, which were directly used and studied in the Civil Rights Movement and other freedoms explored and enhanced in the 1960s. Quite the page to focus on, nice work. Randy Kryn 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussion[edit]

Please support or oppose foreign wikilink inclusion at the RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit of a message for you[edit]

Hi! It's been a while. Something on this page caught my I. I've always been interested in computers (since 1962, when I first saw one in the flesh, anyway). So I added Herman Hollerith to my watch page just to keep track of where that valuable list of computing pioneers has a pointer. Hope you are doing well. — Neonorage, (talk to Phil) 23:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Neonorange, good to hear from you. Doing well, hopefully you too. Computer innovations have interested me as well, especially speed and material advances. They apparently computed the math and logistics for the manned moon missions on an etch-a-sketch and a checkers board (or something). More soon. Randy Kryn 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Zoo mailing list[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you have added yourself as a member of the Wikiproject Zoo. This is the first 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. (Delivered: 16:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC))

When did Alice Paul move to London?[edit]

Hi Randy, I note that you are one of the more involved of the recent editors on the Alice Paul page, so I thought I would bring the following to your attention in the hope that you might be able to resolve it.

The section headed "Early work in British woman suffrage" starts "In 1907, after completing her master's degree at the University of Pennsylvania, Paul moved to England where she eventually became deeply involved with the British women's suffrage movement...

"Then the second paragraph begins "In 1906, Paul moved to London..."

Any chance you could take a look at it?

Thanks -- Mwanner | Talk 19:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mwanner. Britannica has her in England in 1906 but doesn't mention London (Britannica's internet site is overridden with ads, one reason I don't like going there or click on most links). I don't own or have any books on her at present, so I can be of limited help. It's a good question though, and one that might be answered by asking on Paul's article talk page. I usually do a quick check of a user page when someone posts here, and what a beautiful picture of the island on yours (I've uploaded it to my pics, thanks for sharing it, that's an island that looks like it'd be nice to hang out on for an afternoon). An odd connection, I know someone who has the piano which was in Paul's nursing home and which she used. A nice relic of an amazing person and life. Randy Kryn 19:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD of interest[edit]

N.B.: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_3#Template:Zoos_of_Washington.2C_D.C.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleophus J. LaRue Jr.[edit]

Would you be open to create a biography article on Cleophus J. LaRue Jr., a proponent of black preaching. - Ample references and notability is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.197.45 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I haven't created an article in a long time, not my thing on Wikipedia, although I'd be happy to have a look at it once someone else puts up a page. Lots of books authored by the subject, it seems that someone should do an article on him at some point, and maybe someone reading this will work on the suggestion. Please link it here if one is began, thanks. Randy Kryn 04:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion wanted[edit]

Hi Randy. I'd like our opinion. I wrote the below in part of a discussion. Your thoughts?

PR benefits? It's rather a question of reliability and neutral point of view We don't have to reinvent the wheel. Mainstream news organizations have strict, enforced ethical practices manuals. The New York Times and NPR have publically available ethical practice guides on their websites. Other U.S. news organizations also have ethical practices guides—some publically available, some not. It's a question of 'content'—is it free of COI influenced articles to the best of our ability. The reputation of Wikipedia is primary. Reduce the reputation of Wikipedia enough and the problem of undisclosed-paid-COI editing will go away—it won't be worth paying to put an article into this encyclopedia. We protect editors from outing or other harassment to build the encyclopedia, not because it's the right thing to do, but because we have decided it's the only way to build the encyclopedia. We have a code of ethics that prevents outing—that is enforceable. We should have a code of ethics that prevents enabling undisclosed-paid-COI editing—that is enforceable. Especially for admins. (I'm sorry to have to write this using an explicitly U.S. example, but that's what I know.)

The context is a discussion on undisclosed-paid-conflict-of-interest editing; more specifically this section.

On another note: have you seen John Lewis on television lately. He looks ten years younger. Trump and Trumpism has really energized him—I think he could shoot lightning bolts from his fingers when he speaks, a man to make that walk across the Selma bridge so many years ago. — User:Neonorange (Phil) 03:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Neonorange, that discussion is one of those novel sized discussions which would take over an hour to wrap my head around, and I'm participated in too many other Wikipedia politics questions to add more. But the paragraph you left makes sense, and anyone hiding a paid position or paid assignment to edit Wikipedia should be horsewhipped, or at least horsed. I've had thoughts about one editor, but can do no more than speculate. As for John Lewis, there's a renaming discussion going on at his page now, with the end result seeming to be settling around adding the descriptor '(civil rights leader)' after his name. I knew that Trump's win (which I predicted long before he won his party's nomination, the nomination itself was 100% obvious when he announced) would also energize old and new generations of both activists and supporters. John Lewis has been at the forefront of some of that, along with Warren, who, if Clinton had chosen her, would be vice president now. Randy Kryn 03:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I left a note at the discussion. I Think the civil rights leader is the role, an on-going role for which is most noteworthy. Your suggestion is a good one. Going for John Lewis is an overreach—it just excites the parochial instincts of some. — User:Neonorange (Phil) 05:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the test should be Which is the most vandalized of the John Lewis articles? Neonorange (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps my best geek edit...[edit]

...for a four cushion bank shot: added italics to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer link on Wikipedia's Klingon language page. Randy Kryn 12:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"SOP"[edit]

I'm so sorry! When I cited "site-wide SOP", that particular initialism stands for "standard operating procedure"; I wasn't referring to WP:SOP (which I didn't even know existed). By "standard operating procedure" I was essentially saying that I see an unwritten standard of not italicizing initialisms, so I was editing in accordance with that standard. I'll keep an eye on WT:ABBR#italicization of acronyms/initialisms for otherwise italicized titles, and I concur that it's odd this has never before been addressed. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, now both of us have newly learned about WP:SOP, an interesting read. I've noticed the opposite, that the initials are italicized. And who knows if it's been addressed, there are so many regs around here it may be tucked away somewhere. If anyone reading this can help clarify please go to the link above for the discussion. Nice work on bringing this question up. Randy Kryn 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi. I've just seen the message you left on my talk page. Thank you for the words of encouragement. If all senior Wikipedia editors had your attitude, I'm sure it would be a much better place. Before I joined, I read about new editors having edits reverted for no real reason, and sadly I have found this to be the case. I understand why the page I created was deleted, but some of the other reverts have no explanation. Anyway, thank you for your advice and kind words. Chocolatebareater (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, you're very welcome. Those who stick around learn and share quite a bit. Circumstances and learning curves play into people's time here. Probably the best thing to do is "talk" with the editors about their reverts, which they likely should have addressed in more detail in their edit summary. That way, every time it happens you learn a bit more about the longstanding editing traditions around here which, and even though they are often heatedly discussed and at times resistant to positive change, seem to be keeping the overall ship running smoothly. And don't worry, it gets better. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Orange (word)[edit]

Hello, Randy Kryn. You recently removed many italics from Orange (word). But MOS:WORDSASWORDS directs, "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction)." The MOS also allows for use of quotation marks instead "when italics could cause confusion", but counsels not to "switch back and forth between the styles in the same material". Since your edits, bold face, quotation marks (in the lead and 'Etymology' section), and italics (in the 'Rhyme' section) are all used to set of orange, while italics are used for non-English cognates in 'Etymology' (e.g. melarancio) and for near-rhyming words (e.g. hinge). I think it was better before. Cnilep (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I didn't know that about italics on 'words'. Will look at the linked discussion later. Randy Kryn 14:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Brief note[edit]

Just a brief note to let you know that last evening I added the "Lincoln outline" article to the "Lincoln sidebar" template, and that, since its now included in both templates on the "Abraham Lincoln" article, I have removed the "outline" hatnote from the page. Didn't want you to think that someone simply removed it for no reason. Have you seen the "Bibliography of ..." articles that exist for a half-dozen or so presidents? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy, appreciated. I've seen some of the bibliography's but probably not all of them. I haven't worked up a US presidential template in a long time, and there are many to go from the 19th century, plus Harding (unless some have been done I'm not aware of). Maybe I'll do one or so at some point soon, they are a learning curve on both the subject and the "map-making" of the Wikipedia articles on the subject, but your note here has my attention back on possibly proceeding. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Saints[edit]

You are badly misreading MOS:SAINTS. It does NOT say we should never use "St" in titles, indeed it basically says the opposite, except for biographies. Several of these changes will have to be reversed, for example in the titles of works of art. It says (my bold): " "Saint" should never under any circumstance be shortened to "St." in article titles about the person in question, ..." and "Cities and other entities follow common English-language usage in reliable sources--see St. Louis but Saint Petersburg." Nor does it say anywhere that all references in text should use "Saint". In fact it doesn't say that much, so please don't brandish it as justification for things it doesn't say. Sources for works of art & many other things are in fact highly likely to use abbreviations, just as buildings do. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, and thanks. If I changed titles of works of art then of course those should be reverted, can't recall any offhand but you're right. As for others, I've attempted to follow the Saints guideline, and if you could give a couple of examples where you think I've been off-track that would help, or discuss them on the page and ping me. 'Saint' in text should, as I read it, be 'Saint' and not 'St.' when referring to the person, as that follows the 'title' guideline which should translate into the text as well. Many pages have a mix now, so it's either 'Saint' or 'St.' and the choice would seem to fall towards 'Saint'. Maybe a discussion on the guideline page itself would clear that up, let other editors weigh in, and further set the guideline standard. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 13:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Why would it say "in article titles" if it means "in article titles and text"? It is pretty unusual for repeated references in RS not to go to an abbreviation in my experience, and we should do the same. Obviously the first mention in bios should also be "Saint". Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There're at least two points of view, and I'll stop editing 'Saint' or 'St.', I was on quite a roll there, with some thanks if I recall, and will go to other things until this is resolved in a guideline discussion. But where? There seem to be ten thousand guideline/policy pages here, and I wonder if anyone is watching and participating in most of them. Seem to be niches, and there are some I dislike entering (I always find good pages on articles for deletion, for example, and help to save a couple every time I look, which isn't often. Saddest place on Wikipedia, or tied). Can you suggest taking this question somewhere? Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I realize that the Beheading of St John the Baptist article is not his biography, but MOS:SAINTS doesn't use the word "biography", and does NOT limit it to such by saying '"Saint" should never under any circumstance be shortened to "St." in biography article titles'. Instead it has the "in article titles about the person in question" wording. MOS:SAINTS also says: 'If the word "saint" is included in an article name, the standard formula is to keep it unabbreviated except when referring to a name with typical abbrevation (such as the city of St Louis, United States)'. However, it seems to me that the article should probably be moved to Beheading of John the Baptist per the first sentence of MOS:SAINTS: 'Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name.' Thoughts? Or do we all need to discuss this further at WP:NCCL (or somewhere)? Mojoworker (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Good point on the John the Baptist page. I'd like to discuss the in-text use as well, as almost all the Saint and related pages I've edited have mixed use of 'Saint' and 'St.' within the same page when referring to the person and not a church or other use, which I've been changing to 'Saint' throughout. WP:NCCL is a new one on me. Thanks for your clarification. Randy Kryn 01:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Beheading of St John the Baptist is essentially about the feasts, relics, art etc, with very little about the "person in question". The 2nd bit you quote seems again to refer to the biographies of saints; elsewhere I think RSs should be our guide. The policy could probably do with clarification, though I would not support much more prescriptiveness. Lots of WP policies are often taken to say more than they actually do. Obviously internal consistency should be the Ideal in articles. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Have brought the question to the WP:NCCL talkpage. Yes, internal text consistency should be uniform, and 'Saint' and 'St.' have been used almost at random in article page text and even in the same paragraphs and sentences. This probably ought to be clarified as either one or the other when referring to individual people. Randy Kryn 13:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Reconstruction[edit]

Hey Randy. In this edit I think you misread the term Second Reconstruction as Black Reconstruction. I wanted to restore this edit if that was the case. I've never encountered the term Black Reconstruction to describe the Civil Rights Movement. However, the term Second Reconstruction is one of the most used terms to denote the CRM. Mitchumch (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's one I never heard anyone from the movement use or refer to as a descriptor of their actions. What is being reconstructed? Certainly it is not a common enough descriptor to be one of the three boldfaced names of the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn 17:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you saying you've never heard of Black Reconstruction and/or Second Reconstruction being used? Mitchumch (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to any degree of notability, but apparently it was used even at the time. The people I knew well never used it to my memory, and Bruce H. says it's an inside baseball academia term but is used extensively enough, so, personal preference aside, I'll revert my edit. Nice work lately, by the way, glad you are here. Randy Kryn 18:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The term is credited to the 1955 book The Strange Career of Jim Crow by C. Vann Woodward. Consequently, the term has been in circulation since that time. I agree with Bruce that its use is largely an academic affair. Look at Google Ngram for its use since the 1950s.
My objection was to it being used as one of the three main boldfaced names for the movement. Would be nice if the article were formerly named Civil Rights Movement, as you are encouraging. The n-grams are not uniform for the movement, as it goes by several names, including our use on the page. Thanks for your attention to detail. Randy Kryn 18:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll place the term in the note. According to "Separate section usage" in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section guideline:
"Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves."
I would like to create an "Etymology" or "Name" section, but am using the note as a standby. Mitchumch (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If only...[edit]

...I hadn't yet chosen a Wikipedia name. Randy Kryn 19:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)