User talk:Randy Kryn

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

Please leave comments and cookies below with section heads. Thanks.

Literature templates[edit]

As a note to self, here is INeverCry's list of 81 templates and Sadads templates. Randy Kryn 8:20 12 February, 2015 (UTC) edit: both links are now broken

–––. To save an interesting coding effect (test edit). Randy Kryn 2:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

16th Street Baptist Church bombing[edit]

Thanks for the message, Randy. I didn't mean to adjust your edit: We were both updating at the same time and it caused an edit conflict. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Randy Kryn. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 22:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Freudian descendants[edit]

Is the Template:Sigmund Freud template really relevant to Lucian Freud, or to any of his decendants? A "Freud fanily" template might be appropriate, but surely not that one? What is the normal practice for the notable descendants of notable historical people? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (....an interesting connection reported here: [1], but still not general justification I think).

As a grandson the template is probably optional. Immediate family and grandparents, etc., are usually included when distributing templates, but grandchildren sometimes have a close relationship with their grandparents and those seem like the ones to put the template on. Lucian had a career on his own, and it doesn't look like he used his grandfather's life or data in that career, so either way. Thanks for the note. Randy Kryn 13:22 25 February, 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selma to Montgomery marches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glory (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

yet another lower-case move...with procedural complications against BRD norms[edit]

Hi; see [2] and note my comments in the last subsection...and the chorus of people informed about the subject who support the correct capitalization, and the specious claims by a person not informed about the subject who re-moved it against BRD after I had reverted the BOLD lower-case move.Skookum1 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wierd punctuation[edit]

P Randy, why do you say that "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day" is the official name for the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday? Are you saying most books got it wrong? What's official about it? And why not style it more sensibly in Wikipedia? Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have the bill language itself, but here are a couple of quick links. The first is to Ronald Reagan's official speech when he signed the legislation: http://www.webcitation.org/5vnN6qLAO . The second, from the first reference on the page, to the United States Office of Personnel Management, publishing a list of official holidays: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/#url=2013 . There this one from some officialdom or another: http://www.worldcat.org/title/annual-report-to-the-president-and-the-congress-of-the-united-states-on-the-national-holiday-in-honor-of-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/oclc/22142798 (which, if you dig around in it, has links like this: http://www.worldcat.org/title/living-the-dream-8th-annual-community-learning-week-the-first-national-holiday-observance-honoring-martin-luther-king-jr-january-14-20-1986-program/oclc/755779796&referer=brief_results ). I think the official name for the Day has the comma in it, I mean the legislation that Congress passed and Reagan signed. I just don't have a link yet for that one. Can you locate it? Thanks. Randy Kryn 3:24 17 March, 2015 (UTC)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/13/archives-president-reagan-designates-martin-luther-king-jr-day-federal-holiday should do it. — Neonorange (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Or paste this search string in Google: -> &equity;Martin Luther King, Jr. Day" federal law <- (saves an unsightly runon url) — Neonorange (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your links, kind sir, pointing out some proof in the pudding. But look what you have done....taken us into the bowels of the White House server itself. You can't rummage around in there without bumping into Lincoln's ghost or some other flotsam or jetsam, and by the time you climb out some of Nixon's old tapes are stuck to the bottom of your shoe. Randy Kryn 4:53 17 March, 2015 (UTC)
Well, the official federal holidays list doesn't call it that (and neither does the WorldCat link you gave us, whatever that's about), and the White House blog is hardly an authoritative source for an official name. I'm baffled on what neonorange's attempt to post a search string was supposed to do. Many of the "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day" hits that it finds if I change out the equity for a quotation mark are without the comma. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
What I gave you is a search string that finds an index of federal regulations, and specifically the style of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. The url was quite long and broke the layout of Randy's page. I say the whitehouse blog is probably the most scrutinized blog in existence - in other words-the anti-blog. And the Google search is to this publication in worldcat: Code of federal regulations. LSA, list of CFR sections affected Author: Unitrd States Government Office of the Registrer. Both publications have it —> Martin Luther King, Jr. Day —> ; how else could it be? — Neonorange (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/010987c.htm. Proclamation. — Neonorange (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Magic Realism[edit]

Magic(al) realism is generally used to refer to literature. Yes, a film can contain elements of magical realism, as the article suggests. But, movies generally are not broadly classified as such, at least in terms of identifying the primary genre. An argument can be made to include magic realism as a subset of the fantasy genre, although there is disagreement about whether fantasy and magic realism are essentially the same thing. Both include fantastic elements and are set in a world that may or may not otherwise look like our own. I would not be opposed to listing "magic realism" as a sub-genre of fantasy films in the template, but I stand by my interpretation that it is not a distinct genre by itself. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy is actually a much better place for it. I came across the term when I looked up Woody Allen's 'To Rome With Love' after seeing the film. Never heard of the term before, but have added to the Film genre template, so I plopped it in there. Thanks for catching the subtleties of the topic. Randy Kryn 20:20 18 March, 2015 (UTC)

Chaucer template[edit]

Randy, I see you just removed The Complaint of the Black Knight from the "spurious" section. The article states "the book was often falsely attributed in Scotland as a work of Chaucer" and this assertion is cited. Why would this not qualify for inclusion? Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess with that logic it's fine. I just haven't seen a section like that before on a writer's template, a semi-long listing of works which the author didn't do. Maybe a section rename from 'Spurious' to 'Wrongly attributed'? Randy Kryn 00:09 9 April, 2015 (UTC)
Probably for most authors the section would be over-the-top. I think for Chaucer it's not: some of these works were attributed to him literally for centuries. As for the section name, I don't know if there's a favorite term of art within Chaucer studies or not. I think "spurious" is probably the best word; Skeat uses it; WorldCat has a subject heading "Chaucer, Geoffrey, -- -1400 -- Spurious and doubtful works" (and we're not talking about doubtful works here). But I have also seen "apocrypha/apocryphal" and "falsely attributed" used, so if there's some argument against "spurious", there are other possibilities. Phil wink (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, and the history. Interesting and appreciated. I will leave the topic in your capable hands. Randy Kryn 2:10 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your comment here, Mr Kryn. It was very illuminating. You might want to check on my findings in the AN/I thread. I understand that you respect Mr Lyon, and I did too, for a time. I now realise that this whole mess has been caused by his own hand. RGloucester 03:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I respect him, and he seems to do what he does in good faith and with the intent to benefit Wikipedia. I wish you and he could heal what is itching. From what I've seen of his title changes most of them are in the right direction, although he has a tendency to change some titles which are established proper nouns. I'll look at what you posted tomorrow. I really don't want to have an extended discussion on the topic here, as it's already being discussed elsewhere. Thanks for alerting me of another chapter in the tale, but hopefully you and he could have a metaphorical beer and see each other's point of view a little more. Randy Kryn 4:22 9 April, 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a little too late for that, Mr Kryn. What I've found puts this whole nonsense into question. The relevant section is this one. RGloucester 04:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Randy Kryn. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your feedback[edit]

Hello Randy Kryn,

My name is Dominic and I am working on this as an assignment for a class, If you have any other interesting tidbits please don't hesitate to reply back. Thank you very much for your feedback as it will aid the development of my article. I never heard about Claudette Colvin thank you for sharing this information, the main focus on my article is towards African American Civil Rights and the influence others had on it, such as Emmett Till.

Thank you again.

Dom&Kish (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC[edit]

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Signature date stamp[edit]

Hi Randy,

I noticed that your signature omits a comma after the time and includes a comma after the month: e.g.,

Wikicode [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 9:46 17 April, 2015 (UTC)
Produces this Randy Kryn 9:46 17 April, 2015 (UTC)

Aside from this not following the date formats in MOS:DATEFORMAT (which does not apply to talk pages), you may not realise that doing this breaks the Comments in Local Time gadget (enabled in Preferences), Unclutter gadget and customised style sheets, as they cannot recognise the Wikicode as a signature.

For example, in the recent discussion at Talk:Visualization (computer graphics) § Requested move 17 April 2015, the signatures may appear to a user using these features as follows:

Wikicode
  • <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 02:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • [[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 9:46 17 April, 2015 (UTC)
Produces this

Note how your signature appears differently from the others and the different time zones make it difficult to follow the relative times of each post.

Would you consider amending your signature to add a comma after the time and delete the comma after the month so that these features will work? sroc 💬 21:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, thanks. I didn't realize it wasn't proper style. As the kids say, my bad. Randy Kryn 21:38 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, I've realised that there needs to be a comma after the time for some of this to work, too. sroc 💬 21:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Appreciated. Randy Kryn 00:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for being so understanding. Some people can get quite tetchy with having their signature just the way they like it. sroc 💬 14:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft ANI[edit]

User:Tutelary/DraftANI Given that you commented on the initial discussion, would you mind telling me if I mischaracterized some things, went on some sort of tangent, or that some things I mentioned are unsupported? I've been to ANI before and generally, it can get hectic so it's essential to have all the ducks in a row. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll stay out of the page decisions, but thank you for thinking of me. Not bad to take a week off from Wikipedia, talk pages, and even emails (I'd think after what happened he may be back before the two weeks, maybe not even a week). He made a big stink, and was right after all. So he's been vindicated, and his rep restored, so a week in the sun isn't bad. Randy Kryn 19:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, But The Selma Marches and The Push for Voting Rights Were Apart of LBJ's War on Poverty Agenda[edit]

You can listen to the smoking gun tape for yourself if you don't believe me.[3] I think people need to look away from Vietnam and accept the truth about Johnson's role in the Civil Rights Movement.2601:2:5500:D8AB:1004:C410:3419:1639 (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I commented on the article's talk page, and will now listen to the call (I've never heard it, thanks). As for Johnson, of course he had a massive role in the Civil Rights Movement, and actually joined the Movement when he announced "We shall overcome" in his speech to the nation after the second Selma 'march'. Johnson made sure the '64 act was passed in congress, demanded the '65 voting rights act be passed, passed the 1968 fair housing act, and did many things in between those during his entire administration. James Bevel, in the last decade or so of his life, held an annual tribute to Lyndon Johnson consisting of yearly speakers, dinners, events, and other honors. Will listen to it now, if I can, I don't know if my computer is equipped. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 00:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, heard most of it and read the printed transcript, a very good historical phone call. I'll add to the discussion at the Selma to Montgomery march page, thanks very much again. Not a factor in the already ongoing movement, but should be added to the page in some form (and in external links if it's not already). Randy Kryn 00:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template[edit]

Hi Randy, that template seems to be intended for magazines, quite something else from scientific journals. I actually doubt the value of the whole template. The "inclusion criteria" seem to be just the personal preferences of the creator and a few other contributors. Perhaps it would be better to just deleted the wretched thing... --Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary[edit]

Re: During last year's discussion Jimbo Wales asked her what she'd prefer on her Wikipedia page, and she got word to him that 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' was her personal choice – do you have a link to confirm this? It might change my vote. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This should do it (read the top edits, Wales talks about the request, an editor or two gives him grief, and he responds). That occurred during the 2014 discussion, which is as long as a Stephen King novel and may have been written by King himself using dozens of his Wikipedian sockpuppets. I don't have a major dog in this fight, but if I did, the dog would be a Stephen King sockpuppet. And good to meet you again, enjoy the skirmish! Randy Kryn 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A (choose any of several appropriate topics) barnstar for you[edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
However, as a non pretzel eating Brit. the tea - no offence - will have to suffice Face-smile.svg. I have utmost respect for the fact that, even though you had opted for oppose on the HRC page and that we have also had differing views on priorities at WP:RM, you still rose above and wrote a message of pure kindness on my page. If the discussion were to be associated with an epic then I think that unfortunately the emphasis might be on the first part of the title "War and Peace" with no shortage of what I consider to be gaming type activities in progress. Kudos to you for being, as far as all I have seen, in the camp of peacemakers. Face-smile.svg

Lol, and thanks. I'm going to have to learn how to make these things. Randy Kryn 10:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.[edit]

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Template title dates[edit]

I see that you have been adding dates to the titles of several templates that I have created (such as Template:A Tale of Two Cities and Template:The Mysterious Island) and have been reverted by a couple of editors. If there is a debate going on somewhere, I would like to support your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony, great template work. No debate as yet, although I put the dates on all 13 of the Dickens' book templates (I think you created a few of those). I'll check and see if a discussion can take place, maybe do a one-time revert or just start up a discussion page. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates or should I? I have two issues: 1.) Should the template titles have author first such as Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist or work first such as Boris Godunov by Alexander Pushkin and 2.) Should the date of the work be included in the title such as Author Work or Work by Author (YYYY).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to ask where the best place was, and that seems appropriate. Why don't you do it, as I'm not experienced at opening up style discussions here. If the author's name is after the title, would the year go after the author's name? That seems awkward as I picture it. But yes, a discussion would be interesting, although I see no reason why the year shouldn't be added. Book templates include the years of films, plays, soundtracks, etc., but some editors are reverting the use of the year on the main topic of the template - the only topic on it where the year is not allowed. Randy Kryn 1:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have opened the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Luther template[edit]

I don't think that we need {{Martin Luther}} in those of his works which are not linked from it, because he is mentioned in every one of them, and readers can find it in his article. I also don't think we need the giant {{Lutheran hymnody}} expanded anywhere, especially not in a stub article which is not linked yet because it is still a stub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt. Instead of naming every hymn on the template it now includes the list of hymns as 'Hymns by Martin Luther', so they are named, which is the reason why the template would be appropriate on his hymn articles (and they are Luther's works, another reason to include the template). I'll also link the hymns to the 'Works' section as (hymns), which would be another connection and more reason to include the template. I agree about the hymnody template, it is quite large and maybe not needed as expanded everywhere. My reasoning was that it was expanded on many of the pages already, so I just kept it that way on those and then kept expanding, as well as the thought that some of the hymn pages aren't very large and readers could then easily see the expanded template and might have an interest in article-hopping. Make sense? Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 11:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Good to meet you, and happy that one of the hymns is on the Main page ;) - We don't include {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} in all his compositions, - by the same reasoning (not mine, but making sense to me) Luther should not be on all his works. Good idea to have the list of hymns on his template, and have template Luther on that one. With more hymns by him covered (and more to come), perhaps we should have an extra template "Hymns by Martin Luther", as we have {{Bach cantatas}}, to get rid of them (and all that German which I understand but must look strange to others) in "hymnody". What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Gerda Arendt, I looked at your user page and by sheer coincidence I had meant to work on the Kafka template today! I'll do slight tinkering (I usually go through each article on the template to see if they're italicized throughout, surprised at how much isn't properly italicized here). Thanks for the volume of your work here, nice material and creations! A Luther hymn template sounds really good (I contemplated for just a mini-second of adding all the hymns to the main Luther template when I came across your List of hymns page, then saw the number of them). I don't know how you can remove them from the hymnody template, as that includes all the pages on Lutheran hymns. Still think that the Luther template should be included, as he did create them (the Bach template should be on all of his related pages too, collapsed on many if not most of the compositions but maybe not). Wonder why they're not on there. Well, as you can tell, I'm a template minded person, so will go for 'more' rather than 'less' anytime. But yes, the Luther hymn template is an idea well worth following up on, and I look forward to seeing it (if not singing it). Randy Kryn 13:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Have come across the main three hymn books made up largely of Luther's hymns, and added these to his Works section in the template (as subsection of your list of hymns). Put the Luther templates on those three pages, which seems appropriate. Fellow was proficient, persistent, and popular, the three 'p's of productivity (ouch). Randy Kryn 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

knowledge which you consider interesting, fun, and important to chronicle
Thank you, Randy, for offering lentils and your knowledge, especially on "James Bevel's 1960s Civil Rights Movement history", for quality articles such as Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, for gnomish page moves and redirects, for navigation templates reminding you of maps, some painted or significantly seasoned, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism!?![edit]

What do you mean by this edit??? Have you read the bit at WP:NAVBOX where it says "Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates" as explained in my edit summary? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robsinden. "5.Links to Wikimedia sister projects with relevant material" may be included. Placing 'Commons', 'Wikiquote', 'Wikisource' data at the bottom of a template is allowable and should be encouraged. Since there is nothing wrong with it, removing those links amounts to vandalism from someone who should know better. We seem to be in disagreement on template issues, but that aside, it's good to meet you and others who enjoy templates and see their value to a page and a topic, although we do seem to have different views on some of the placements, and what a good template does. Randy Kryn 11:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Randy :) Sorry, things get bit a bit heated sometimes. I'm not seeing that at WP:NAVBOX though! --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's from WP:External links. WP:NAVBOX specifically precludes external links in navboxes, so I'm afraid you're using the wrong guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Please could you revert this edit now. Thanks! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(and on a separate issue, if you enjoy a good navbox, {{Doctor Who episodes}} ranks among my favourite!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
My apology for the vandalism comment, you thought the deletion was appropriate. Won't revert, of course, because the linking of Common, Wikiquote, and Wikisource links from our own projects reflects a great amount of work by many dedicated Wikipedians and is well suited for template placement. I'm usually surprised by the amount of work they've put into those projects, and have enjoyed and used the data from them many times. If there is a hard and fast guideline (which of course there can't be, the nature of guidelines taken into account precludes that) which says those can't be included then that's a guideline to be ignored for the benefit of Wikipeda, the projects involved, and the dedicated work put into those projects. The Doctor Who episodes is concise and give good information. I've never looked at that one, but Clara would approve. Randy Kryn 12:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:NAVBOX is clear. No external links in navboxes! Linking to sister projects is an external link. Take it up at the guideline if you have an issue with it - stop adding the external links until such time as the guideline is modified, and stop reverting the rightful removal of them per the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the guidelines (remember, guidelines are not rules), and please stop removing such valuable links on the templates. Why are you insisting on doing something which goes against Common sense? Randy Kryn 12:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You can't just change the guidelines to fit in with your own personal view!!! If anything is vandalism, then that's a more likely candidate! Why are you insisting on doing something which goes against a well-established guideline? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you creating a wiki-wide edit war when it's not needed? The appropriate and valuable inclusion of links to our sister projects at the bottom of the templates is not only a fine exception to the guideline, but has never been objected to by anyone before, and hundreds of templates now include this pertinent information. Please stop until this can be discussed, thanks. Randy Kryn 12:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You're the one that is editing against guidelines, not me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Robsinden: Guidelines, are guidelines; and meant to be broken (see WP:Ignore all rules). I agree with Randy Kryn. This is an inappropriate use of policy, to support removal of content that is from Wikimedia projects (which are part of Wikipedia's ecosystem, not external). Moreover, the removal of redlinks per WP:EXISTING for articles likely to be created by famous authors, is an also an overreach. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Guidelines are not meant to be broken, they're meant to be followed. They can be broken in rare circumstances however. What you're proposing affects an awful lot of navboxes, so it isn't a case of making a single exception - WP:IAR cannot apply in this case - it will need to be discussed at the guideline (or elsewhere appropriate). The removal of redlinks is also necessary, as redlinks do not aid navigation, the entire purpose of a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Its already in the policy (first bullet), and is common practice for literary templates (I have created a ton of these, but also have seen other people creating them as well). The redlinks link to clearly notable topics that deserve articles and have considerable scholarship; thus they are likely to be created. Redlinking, in general, is a good think: and encourages continued article creation. This has happened with the JFCooper articles, and I am sure it will happen with the Trollope articles. Moreover, a redlink is a useful navigational tool, in that it shows people where we cannot help them yet. If you don't remember 4-5 years ago, one of the biggest growth tools to encourage new editors was read links (read Wikipedia:Red link). But precisely this kind of overreach on policy, to make Wikipedia look complete and not a WP:Work in Progress prevents new people from finding ways to contribute - and discourages people from making good faith attempts at contributing. Please don't let this kind of legalism perpetuate the decline in editorship, Sadads (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Redlinks are great in articles, I have no problem with that, but people forget what the function of a navbox is. To provide navigation. A navbox cluttered up with redlinks is not conducive to that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added the proposed language to the template discussion page, and ask that you (Rob) stop removing the data until the issue is resolved. Actually, thank you for pushing this, as I've often thought of discussing it with the wider community, as I see this as an addition to the template collection which should be encouraged. I was about to start adding the data to the 'Fairy Tale' templates as suggested (I'd never looked at those) but will put that on hold until we can meet and have coffee over the discussion. Can we work on a ping list? Randy Kryn 13:04, 29 May, 2015 (UTC)
Yes - good to get a wider input rather than to get caught up in a little bubble. Sorry if we've got off on the wrong foot. I've notified the template project of the discussion already. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually anyone who loves templates is a friend of mine, it's a nice limited community which I'm starting to feel at home with. As for wrong foot, remember, every time we lift a foot we're lifting half our body (doesn't mean anything here but it's something I texted to someone just yesterday). Randy Kryn 13:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yoga Sutras[edit]

Hi Randy. I'm new to Wikipedia although not academic discussions. I hope I'm doing this right. First, I'd like to thank for all your work as an editor.

I'm wondering why you edited my section on the Yoga Sutras. I have two specific issues. First, by moving the section on Edwin Bryant to the front, you end up implicitly supporting the later comment "The most recent assessment of Patañjali's date ... is that of Philipp A. Maas. In the first place this is factually inaccurate since Maas is from 2006 and Bryant is from 2009.

Also, while I appreciate the great work that Philipp is doing in dating texts, his proposals are by no means universally accepted by professional Indologists like myself. The text as it reads now implies such acceptance. My version attempted to give a feeling for the differences of opinions among mainstream Indologists about the dating. As you may know, dating is a bit of obsession for many of them. Whole careers are based on dating texts!

In passing I should note that Bryant is a full professor at the Ivy League Rutgers University so he is a bit of an expert.

Would you be averse to changing the text back to something more closely approximating the understanding in the scholarly community?

All the best, IndologyScholar (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You got the wrong culprit, fingered the wrong man, made a misidentification that sent me to the big house for life....long story short, wrong editor. I made this edit, which added a different year to another book, and I think an italic. Was it the editor before me who was the one who did the deed? But bottom line, great to meet you, anyone who's a fan of P yoga sutras is someone I am glad to meet. My teacher gave us what he considered the finest translation of the Sutras, and I haven't looked at that in years. Maybe time to give it another read. Thank you. (ADDED: Hi, I think the editor who deleted your data left a note on the article's talk page. Since you're new, a talk page note on the article's discussion page starts a dialogue about the edit. One of the "guidelines" of Wikipedia is that time is of no essence - a very yoga like way of living - so an edit does not have to go into effect when put onto a page but can be talked over and refined. I'll keep up with the discussion to, since you've dragged me into this hell hole, ah, I mean, this fine embodiment of academic discussion and debate) Randy Kryn 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL Thanks Randy! Sorry for the mistake. Do you remember the name of the recommended translation? 14.102.43.2 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. When I look it up I'll see if there was a name on it, it was given as a photocopy. I'll try to get to it soon, thanks. Randy Kryn 12:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Unlinked publication dates in navboxes[edit]

Randy, if I can get an answer to my questions in the discussion @Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Consistent formatting of template titles for navboxes of literary works, I think I can strongly support your addition of publication years in the navboxes -- including with examples of similar unlinked data in navboxes for other subject areas. But I need a response. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Randy, thanks for responding on the template project talk page. I have had an interesting discussion with Robsinden on his user talk page, and I have have made him aware of several well-established precedents regarding the use of incidental text, such as tenure dates, in navboxes. In his follow-up comments to me, this appears to be shaping up as a content dispute over how best to organize bibliography and filmography navboxes, not a dispute seriously involving WP:NAVBOX or the template guidelines. This should not be interpreted as unrestricted license to add unlinked text to navboxes, but merely a recognition that limited use of unlinked dates, section headers, etc., can serve an organizational function within a navbox which does aide reader navigation. In any event, now that this appears to be shaping up as a content dispute, I'm not inclined to jump in and tip the balance in the discussion. I have not been particularly active in editing articles about movies and literary works, and I think it would probably be a little unfair of me to parachute into these discussions deus ex machina to determine the outcome. If y'all start debating what is permissible under the NAVBOX or template guidelines again, ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Documentaries[edit]

The Template:African-American Civil Rights Movement is on the article page for Eyes on the Prize. It was added on 19:23, 16 January 2010 by User:ABCxyz. The documentary is not in the template nor is there a place for documentaries in the template. Should I remove the template from the article or do you want to add documentaries to the template? Mitchumch (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mitchumch (do pings work with red links?). The documentary is included in African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) in popular culture, which is listed on the template. This connection, and the relationship between the program and the history of the Civil Rights Movement, seem enough to warrant the template's inclusion on the page. I'd think all films and other popular culture items are covered in the popular culture article, and the link on the template should be enough. Please check out the historians section, I think there are some iffy entrants there, but then again the definition of words like "noted" or "major" are different for each person, and include subjective choices. Randy Kryn 12:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
As for pings, the template you used didn't work, but Template:Reply to works. As for the article you mentioned, I didn't know it existed. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your take on a new category[edit]

A new category has just been created, Category:Burial sites of the Martin Luther King family. I've got a strong feeling it should go to Categories for Deletion. The creator has added two items, Atlanta and The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change. The first item is far to general, the second seems just about exactly right for the entire content of the category. There is no explanation of the potential membership. I can't think of a need for the category. Do you see any reason for me not to go forward?

I've liked the Template tear you've been on—it's a real contribution to organization of knowledge. — Neonorange (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (with one comma only, one period only)

Hi Neonorange, and good to "see" you. Thank you, templates are the maps of Wikipedia, but many want to limit those maps. My year long template additions to "Below" of 'Wikiquote' and 'Wikisource texts' are close to being removed, although a couple of us are trying to save them. Yes, that's an odd category, and if you want to do a deletion request I'd join it if only for its oddness. "Atlanta"? Might as well add 'United States', etc. If it stays there might be a page on the cemetery where Daddy King and Mrs. King are buried. Let me know what you decide. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:JFKseries[edit]

Randy: check out this new "sideplate" template someone created; I don't think it is really necessary since there is the detailed "endplate" template already being used on JFK related articles. But, if it is kept, it could use some work. There is also the question of what to include and how to present it therein. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

At first it seems redundant, but the template does present a nice look, with the photo and signature, and could 'attract' more readers to notice it. (to talk page readers: That's the problem with any templates, side or bottom: a large percentage if not most of Wikipedia readers don't know about them. If some of them are made a little more eye-catching, they serve their purpose to a wider audience, and may educate individual members of that audience to notice templates on other pages too). I've nudged it a bit, but since a good bottom template exists maybe it shouldn't be as detailed as it would be without a bottom template. Interesting find and creation. Randy Kryn 17:00, 12 2015 (UTC)

Adding years to templates.[edit]

I would suggest that you do not add years to templates, or make edits such as this while the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Consistent formatting of template titles for navboxes of literary works is still underway. Please await the outcome. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That discussion is about adding the years of publication to the title, not within the body of the template. There is no outcome to be affected. If the years are not allowed in the title, which would be extremely odd in that all other years are allowed, then the year of first publication/performance of the main topic of the template has to be allowed somewhere. This particular year add covers the album, play, and film of Jesus Christ Superstar, which doesn't seem controversial. Randy Kryn 11:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It's covered in the discussion. In any case, it's completely unnecessary to add the years at {{Jesus Christ Superstar}}, as they do not aid navigation. There is only one of each media. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robsinden. I can't revert again or I'd join you in a 3RR violation. The discussion is about years in template titles, which seem very reasonable if the year of the main topic is not "allowed" in the body of the template. The point of only one entry for each media is a good one, yet other years for recordings are on the template and to not allow the inclusion of the original year for the album seems odd to me. I think much of this is just how our brains work, you and others see one form of a template as correct and even having the subjective quality of "beauty", while I and others see a fuller template as having those qualities. This 'Jesus Christ Superstar' template is a good example, and I did not expect a large discussion about it as it just seemed natural to add those years. But how does it make sense to include the years of the cast recordings and not include the year of the concept album recording? Does it hinge, for you, on not including any information other than a straight link? In that case the Cast recordings were already different (until I added the 1992 section link to the Australian recordings), differentiating between 'Australian' and 'Swedish'. In your way of thinking wouldn't just the words 'Australian' and 'Swedish' have sufficed, rather than keeping the years? Randy Kryn 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "Australian" and "Swedish" would suffice, unless further disambiguation was needed. In fact, as we don't repeat links or link to sections of pages from navboxes, and as there are two Australian cast recordings, this would actually be more accurate. I'm also inclined to move the Swedish cast recording to a title similar to the Australian one, as albums are not usually disambiguated by year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've just found this: Jesus Christ Superstar (1996 London Cast), which needs a home too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)"
See, our bickering has produced a new find and a new link, nice find. I'd be for keeping all the dates, but the Australian situation does require some fix either in title or in scope to include the 1992 recording. Randy Kryn 14:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 :) I've changed the scope - what do you think? And found Superstar (UK TV series) on my travels too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Missing pieces all. Nice work. Randy Kryn 14:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I would like your input on a proposed article list. The proposed article list is a list of campaigns that were part of the civil rights movement. The list would not be restricted to the southern United States. As an example for proposed list, see List of World War II battles. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Mitchumch (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. For the main Civil Rights Movement wouldn't this data be chronologically included in the Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) page? If you go before and beyond the years of that successful movement then the name should reflect that. An interesting idea though, but definition may be an issue. One option is to start the page in a sandbox and when you feel ready to open it for other editors. Thanks for asking for my input. I should look at the main Movement article more, it's been awhile and I've never jumped into that one fully. Randy Kryn 13:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
wouldn't this data be chronologically included in the Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) page?
Yes, content would and should overlap. However, the arrangement will be based on geography then subdivided into constituent parts of the local movement.
definition may be an issue
I agree. I've also sought the input of User:Brucehartford and he stated a similar thought. As I said to him, I am not ready to determine the definition until I've compiled a more robust list of civil conflicts. From that point, I will be more confident in addressing the issue of definition.
start the page in a sandbox
I have created a sandbox page at User:Mitchumch/sandbox. It is a skeletal outline for the proposal. The list is unimpressive in appearance. I have included articles currently listed in the Template:African-American Civil Rights Movement. I will next began to add the civil conflicts listed on the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website in the History & Timeline section. From there I will began reviewing scholarly/academic sources and add entries as I go along.
I welcome any entries you think should be included. Please feel free to add them. Mitchumch (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the offer, and I'll look at the page but not edit it until you think it's complete to your liking and ready for others input. Would be nice to get the timeline page in very good shape too. Good choice to contact Bruce. More soon. Randy Kryn 13:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't discount the value of your input. If possible, could you place User:Mitchumch/sandbox and User talk:Brucehartford on your watchlist? That way if something catches your eye, then you can chime in. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Haven't looked at it yet, I think the "first draft" should be in the hand of the person who imagined what the concept of the page would look like, please let me know when it's ready for added input. Time limitations too. Will watchlist the two links. I appreciate you keeping me in mind, and have wanted to mention your good work on the template for some time now. What's come to me, and this is really stupid but I think it's true, is that I haven't fully appreciated you because of your name being a red link. Purely an unconscious reaction, I just realized it. My apologies. I'll give Bruce a quick note too, thanks again. Randy Kryn 12:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Alt. proposal might work[edit]

I replied to your set of questions / arguments (what "harm" does it do to have sister links in navboxes, etc.) It may be of interest just to understand more clearly what the counter-arguments are.

I sat on the |below= alternative idea and mulled it. I have a suspicion that might actually be accepted if it were properly developed and re-proposed later. Deets at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#below-section; feel free to quote it elsewhere if you need to run the "how to make this fly" suggestions by some others, and it's too buried in there for them to find it. I know I've probably come across as some stern opposer of anything you want to do with sister-project links, but I'm not. It just has to be done in a way that no one will find misleading even slightly, because of the "they don't have our content policies, and we have no editorial control over them" issue. A precedent you can cite is that infoboxes permit a link to the official website of a subject. That's permissible because it's clear it's an external link, and an important one in the context, presented in a way that cannot possibly confuse readers into thinking it's WP content. It's a bit harder to cross that threshold with sister project links because many people do not understand they are separate sites with their own editorial policies. So this would need to be made explicit; some heading that includes "External" in it, probably. Hope this helps.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: Please do try to follow other's arguments as they present them. Much of your uphill battle on this has been reinterpretationism, where you see what people write, and spin it into something they didn't actually mean. People are usually really clear about the policy (or just common-sense) implications of proposals, and they usually mean what they say. If someone says something like "major change to the scope and purpose of nav templates" that does not mean "minor change in template definition". Words like 'scope" and "purpose" and "definition" have nuanced meanings on WP and aren't swappable. I mean this in a helpful way: When you reinterpret like that and respond to their arguments with rebuttals that actually only address what you seem to think they could have meant instead of what they said, it comes off as a straw man ploy and if you do it repeatedly, it comes off as a WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem. This makes people keen to reject what you're proposing, and less likely to listen the next time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, and thanks for the helpful suggestions. I haven't read your reply on the "what harm does it do" question, and will have to look for the page that it's on. In the last half year I've come to realize that every day people try change policies/guidelines on so many pages that there are far too many to keep track of with any normal Wikipedian time allotment. One of those 25-hour-in-a-day type of things, where these discussions, which more often than not are walls of text that go to novella lengths and often spread over different pages, that keeping aware of the shifting sands of Wikipedian guidelines/policies/ideas/hunches needs both the mind of a lawyer and the time and focus of a pre-Guttenberg illustrating monk. Within the template discussions I do happen to advocate, maybe not in standard Wikipedian language, that a good template contains both a map of information available on the site as well as the presentation of that information in a full way which, by itself, contains a summary and map of the subject in a coherent manner. The latter does not go against the guideline of what a template "is", but includes the fact that a template can be a type of semi-complete guide to a subject. A strict "navbox is for navigation" interpretation on some of those policy pages seems to argue against logical and beneficial changes (such as I see the pleasantly fulfilling and informative practice of including wikiquotes and wikisource text in the below section of a template). Hopefully the definition of the word "navigation" allows for a full site-wide map of a subject to emerge within the template itself. Randy Kryn 3:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tallahassee[edit]

Thanks. If you look at my user page you'll see that I skip around a lot, except for the articles I created. I do a lot of work on improving English, especially from non-native speakers.

Since you're interested in civil rights history, you might enjoy the section on black history of Tallahassee, which I wrote and which I'm quite proud of. (History of Tallahassee, Florida#Black history. deisenbe (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of Dune terminology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikisource and Wikiquote in navboxes[edit]

Hi Randy, why are you adding these back in, when it was decided that there was consensus not to amend the the guidelines to allow these external links? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Robsinden: This is where the discussion was started, this is where it should stay. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. The close was "No action", and by no action it seems like the status quo can stay in place, which would include the inclusion of Wikiquotes and Wikisource texts. Sadads and I discussed this on his talk page and he seems in agreement. Please leave them alone until this is all sorted out, and if that means taking it to the next level I'd like to do it for just the two links, Wikiquote and Wikisource on templates related to writers and others who would be featured in those two projects. I'll be glad to help remove "commons" from templates. If you would like to remove the two other links, Wikiquote and Wikisource, or other sister projects, why not start with the links which have been on the {{Wikipedia}} template since December of 2009, and people can have a further discussion on that talk page? The "Wikipedia" template goes way beyond what I was asking for, and has links to many more sister projects than I think necessary for essential coverage of the topic, but still I think it should contain the Wikiquote link. Sadads and I discussed this at his talk page recently as well. Thanks, and I had intended to write you on this but things flew by. Randy Kryn 9:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No Randy, there was consensus not to amend the the guidelines to allow these external links. i.e. the guideline continues to not allow external links in navboxes, so any external links should be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
If that's how you read "No action" (and Sadads and I read seem to read it differently) then where do I take the question to the next level of appeal? Thanks. And as mentioned, before removing them from the author's templates, where they do so much good that I'm scratching my head like a monkey thinking why folks would want those taken off, please remove the links from the {{Wikipedia}} template, where they have been since December of 2009, I'll revert, and then we can continue the discussion on its talk page, where it may do the most good. I just clicked on some of the other sister-project links from that template and looked at a couple I've never seen before, people have done a lot of work on those. But I'll still stick to the quotes and texts, which seem appropriate for authors and other individuals templates in particular. Randy Kryn 9:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Look at the guideline. It says "Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates". You and Sadads tried to get this changed to make an exception for sister projects but there was no consensus to make this amendment. Therefore sister project links are not excepted under the current guideline, and thus not allowed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Then I would like to appeal the non-Admin closer decision, where would I go to do that, on just the Wikiquote and Wikisource links, which was the original question and wasn't closed as yet (the close was including all the sister projects on templates). I think the next step in removing the links, if you insist on doing them (again, it's a guideline, not a policy, so can't we just keep those two links on appropriate pages?), would be on the Wikipedia template page, why not work from there to get more people involved in the discussion? Randy Kryn 10:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
There's clearly nothing wrong with the close. Consensus is massively against the change to the guideline, so you won't get anywhere, but you could ask for a close review on an administrator's noticeboard maybe, so that someone else can point this out to you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
And stop reverting the removal. You tried to get the guideline changed, it didn't happen. You can't go round acting as if it was changed, just because you don't like the outcome!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop removing them pending an appeal, as it would be quite a chore to keep on going back to find out where you removed the two (and it is only a guideline, not a policy). Thanks. Is that the next step in an appeal of this kind? And which admin noticeboard, the back-rooms of Wikipedia are vast and non-interconnected. I just saw you reversed, for example, the Horace template, and if wikiquotes and wikisource texts can't be on a template devoted to Horace then they should be in the external links section of every one of his books and other works where the template reaches. So please, before removing any more, please remove them from the {{Wikipedia}} template itself. Randy Kryn 10:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You won't get anywhere with an appeal - consensus was overwhelmingly clear, so there I'm not going to hold off making edits "pending appeal". Yes, it might be appropriate to link to the commons media for each Horace work, so do that if you like (there is a {{sister project}} template exactly for this kind of thing), but as per the current guideline, as it stands, and especially after the RFC, these should not be added to the navboxes, and should be removed. Also don't tell me which templates I can, can't, should or shouldn't edit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The closing was for 'No Action', which to me means Status Quo, which allows the grandfathering in of the very useful templates. Wikiquote and Wikisource, on individual's templates, where they have been for well over a year now. The reason I mention {{Wikipedia}} is that a group of sister-project links have been there since 2009, and that's one that many eyes must have seen without them being removed during the previous five and a half years. And it is Wikipedia's template about itself. I don't know if the closer took that template into account when it was closed with "No Action". So I'm just saying that it would be the template to change to make your point, and to allow for further discussion. Randy Kryn 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"No action" refers to whether the guideline should be changed, so the guideline remains at the status quo, not the templates you edited against the guideline. The guideline remains with "no external links" and since the discussion this specifically refers to the external links you tried to get excepted as any ambiguity on these was cleared up by the RFC. I'm not about to make any WP:POINTY changes to a template that may have a template specific reason for inclusion/exception. No further discussion is needed. The RFC was quite clear. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Francis Schonken: who closed the RFC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Rob Sindens interpretation is correct. No change to guideline = external links in navboxes not allowed. Really, did this need to be spelled out? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Francis Schonken:. Then where do I go to appeal the decision? And how, Rob, is asking you to change the {{Wikipedia}} template pointy? It does make a point, yes, but that template is, in one sense, the lead template of the project, Wikipedia, itself, and if not only two but all outside links are allowed on that template than why can't the two I've put on over a year of work, which nobody complained about, be allowed as a valid and long-time exception to the guideline? Randy Kryn 12:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Randy, you really need to accept this gracefully an move on. There has been a specific discussion about this, that is why it cannot "be allowed as a valid and long-time exception to the guideline". And please don't repeat your trick of adding a blank line just to leave this inappropriate edit summary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it was a fine edit summary, you diminished the data available on the overall project from the template on James Joyce, I literally cannot understand why you would do that, and said so. No, this needs some form of appeal, and I asked Francis above where I would go to do that. As I said, I don't favor adding all the templates at once, but will confine my objections to the original question of 'Wikiquotes' and 'Wikisource', which had more support than the open-ended question put up by Sadads. People responded on that question who didn't respond on the Rfc. So that specific question is the one I'll address further. You haven't yet answered why you know about yet accept the Wikipedia template containing all of those links, but remove two very informative links from templates such as {{James Joyce}}. Randy Kryn 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That is not what edit summaries are for. You didn't make any edit to the template at that time, you added a blank line *just* to make that point. That's disruptive editing. You really need to accept the decision reached through consensus at the RFC. This isn't Randypedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't revert your removal of James Joyce's quotes-page link on the James Joyce template, which I would do if it were Randypedia. Please keep a careful record of all of these you are removing, and can you promise to put them back if this gets decided differently? It's going to be a lot of work, remember, I put those on templates for over a year, hundreds of them. They are very good additions, add much pertinent data to the template, and will, I'm sure, be allowed at some point. Both on Wikipedia and Randypedia. Randy Kryn 13:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course I won't keep a record or promise anything of the sort!!! I don't see you removing all the additions you made against the guideline and the established consensus which has created work for others to tidy up after you... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Tidy up? Removing major data seems like the better description. As you know, in the year I worked to add the data nobody reverted or complained about any of the edits, until you did. I knew nothing about the guideline then, and just went about my merry way - for a year - without objections. If that's not the definition of an allowed exception to the guideline then I don't know why exceptions are allowed anywhere. I still say the Below section of {{Wikipedia}} sticks out like a sore thumb, and politely ask you to cut that out the same as you've now done with Henry David Thoreau (Henry David Thoreau!). Randy Kryn 13:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
So I removed it and you reverted!!! That's WP:POINTY and disruptive. Seriously Randy, what's your deal? Do you still not get it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
(e.c.) Re. Appeal: this has been an RfC, so a community decision (my role was exclusively to interpret that there wasn't enough consensus to change the guidance), this means there's not much above it (meaning above what the current consensus in the community appears to be).
  1. A first approach would be to wait some time, and take it up again once you feel community consensus might swing another way (see WP:CCC for guidance).
  2. Maybe another part of the community thinks otherwise. It is possible to raise the point elsewhere, e.g. at WP:VPP. However if you do that before the RfC result has been archived, don't forget to link to the concluded discussion from the place where you raise the issue afresh (thus: "see prior concluded discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?]]" or soemthing in that vein with a clear link) (see WP:FORUMSHOP why this shouldn't be done too lightly, but you may feel not enough editors commented in the RfC so don't forget to mention that)
  3. Not an "appeal", but a way forward might be to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates. Wikipedia:Navigation templates is an essay and has a lower threshold for implementing useful guidance in the form of sensible interpretations of guidelines. That way you won't get all you dream (overturning the guideline on this point) but maybe enough for some workable exceptions.
  4. If you think someones behavior has been bad, and so bad that the outcome of the RfC was corrupted by it, you should go to WP:ArbCom. Just mentioning for completeness, I've read the RfC and some surrounding conversation and can tell you, there's nothing there that would make ArbCom even consider to take this as a case.
  5. Other ways of finding consensus if you really can't agree with the current outcome of the RfC are listed at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions, but as said RfC is only one step lower than last resort WP:VPP, so I don't think trying out lower steps like Third Opinions or the like would lead to a different appreciation.
  6. Ultimately, post on Jimbo's talk page, but be sure to read m:The Wrong Version#Involving Jimbo first. As you can see also this one I only list it for completeness, not for its practicality.
#2 and #3 might be the most practical ones to choose from, after having given #1 enough thought. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think #3 would hold any weight, as an essay doesn't trump a guideline. As we've had an explicit RFC on the matter, to amend an essay in direct contradiction of the results of the discussion couldn't be considered a workable interpretation of the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Guidelines are a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (bolding added), as the template on top of every guideline has it. Essays can contain thoughtful interpretations and rationales of how to go about with common sense and sensible exceptions in particular cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the very good summary and pathway guidance. I'll get back to this, have to go now. But no, I would not post this on Wales' talk page, although he may catch a glimpse of it if the links are removed on the main Wikipedia template, which really sticks out like a sore thumb in this discussion. That's why I keep pointing it out, I'm of the mind that what's good for {{Wikipedia}} is good, just for two links, for {{James Joyce}} (James Joyce!)Randy Kryn 13:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken:, hi, wondering, and with no disrespect (I don't know the workings of who closes and how that is chosen), if there is also an in-between option of requesting an admin look at the close and decide if maybe it still could remain open for amendments and a review. Also, since the {{Wikipedia}} template did have sister-links in the below section from late in 2009 until @Robsinden: removed them yesterday, his actions should shift this discussion over there for awhile. The fact that the Wikipedia template came into the Rfc discussion very late, and may have been missed by almost all of the people commenting on the page, might be cause to open up a new question, possibly on the Wikipedia template/navbox talk page. The Rfc question was an expansion of two previous discussions on the page, which concerned only two sister-links, not the whole ball of wax, but when the whole ball of wax was brought up as the Rfc topic at that point the question revolved around "should we expand the limits of a navbox to include Below-links to relevant sister projects"? Hundreds of templates of notable subjects had these already, inadvertently and from an ignorance of language of a guideline, and had contained these two Below-links for a year. Those of "Wikiquote" and "Wikisource texts", which link to the vast amount of quality information and quality work that our sister-project Wikipedia family created to share with humanity. These links appeared on templates on thousands of pages, very likely the majority of which didn't have an existing "Wikisource" or "Wikiquote" directional-template. Nobody complained. And if they were going to complain they really should have long before this. Over a year they were there, and that was a part of the discussion. So, discussion, arguments on talk pages and voting pages, and near the end, right at the end, right about the time someone was going to close the Rfc, I find that {{Wikipedia}} has contained sister-city links since late 2009. For over five and a half years. At that point, with that added evidence, I would say that the question we voted on may have been the wrong question, and the wrong or at least an early close. That the main 'Wikipedia' template - the template about itself - contained lots of sister-city links, contained them from 2009, and you can't say that with those being on that one that editors didn't have time to complain. From what I gather from the "no expansion" editors, their main and often only argument is that "navboxes are for navigation with the site, it's in the guidelines". That guideline language has been grandfathered out long ago, for we know now that major Wikipedia templates have contained widely-viewed links to sister-city projects since 2009. That, and the fact that after someone finally grumbled about them. There was an enquiry about them once on the talk page for the {{Wikipedia}} template, and that question was lightly answered and ended the discussion, a discussion on the Watch list of probably many admins, and everyone was fine with them. That discussion was brief, answered, and the end of that conversation until yesterday when Robsinden cut the links to our sister-city projects out of that template. And if you go back and read the two previous discussion on the talk-page and then the Rfc discussion, most of the people who were against allowing something which had been in place for years to remain didn't understand that they were voting on something which had been in place for years. Their main argument was that it was already in the guideline, so it must be real, and when it was proven to them that it wasn't real it was too late in the game to catch the attention of all the people that voted. So, long story longer (a red-link? there's no Wikipedia page or redirect to "Wall of text"???) , is there any precedence for reopening a Rfc discussion because important and possibly determinative evidence came in too late to become a factor in the overall discussion? Thanks, Randy Kryn 17:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. {{Wikipedia}}: there is some latitude for links outside the standard sister project link boxes to Wikipedia sister projects in Articles on Wikipedia (assuming that {{Wikipedia}} is used exclusively in articles that describe some aspect of Wikipedia). The policy about this is at WP:CIRCULAR, second paragraph of that section. That guidance doesn't describe use in navboxes, but afaics that might be a defensible exception, if and when consensus can be found about it e.g. at WP:VPP or Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates, or, as you indicate, on the template's talk page. The RfC discussions themselves didn't show a consensus for any exceptions at guideline level, that's why I didn't mention any in my closure, but it remains one of the possibilities for approach #3 I proposed above. And true, the fact that that template came up rather late in the discussion may mean that several people who had seen or commented in the discussion before didn't actually see that argument.
Re. Disputing the closure, meaning: disputing my single intervention closing the RfC. I tried to be comprehensive in my list of options above, but true, you got me there, that's one I completely forgot. I started my closure summary with "(non-admin closure)": technically, you can ask any admin to have a look at the way I closed it and whether it matches the thrust of the discussions in the RfC. I have no problem with that. For assessing a closure of a deletion discussion there is WP:DRV, but I'm not aware of a similar organized process for appealing RfC closures, except the less specific ones I indicated. Maybe I should have mentioned WP:AN or WP:ANI for requesting an admin's eye on whether what I did was due process etc. But as I'm less familiar with those noticeboards (I rarely go there) I don't know whether I'd be giving you good advice to go there. But sure, feel free to leave a note there, and probably an admin will pick it up and scrutinize my closure, no problem, no problem at all.
→ PPS: I found the applicable guidance: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, apart from the introductory paragraph of that section its third subsection Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Apparently it needs to be WP:AN, so I struck WP:ANI in the previous paragraph, otherwise I seem to have given correct information on the procedure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
After a close reading of the pro's and con's of that procedure there, I'd definitely have listed it as "included for completeness but a very low chance this would overturn my assessment of the RfC" if I'd have thought about it when writing my original list of options. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. "who closes and how that is chosen" – I wasn't chosen or whatever. I picked it up at WP:ANRFC when posting another request for closure there (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 18#Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?): I saw the backlog of that page, thinking this is going to take ages before my request is going to be processed here, let's see whether I can help out with one that doesn't need an admin to close it, and as I was somewhat familiar with the topic (I had followed the discussions on the talk page where the RfC ran, but hadn't been interested and didn't really have an opinion on the matter) the choice was quickly made.
The argument that external links in existing templates remained uncontested for a long time was discussed at length in the RfC, but no consensus that that would make any difference for the guidance in the navbox guideline, so there too, that was all included in my "no consensus to change the guideline" summary.
Whether or not articles have the specific sister project templates while these external links were included in the navbox also didn't swing consensus in favor of having these links in the navboxes. Which indeed may mean that articles that use these navboxes would need to be checked whether they can be improved by sister-project template links: as for the guidance in the guideline that is however the solution that should be implemented. On a practical level I'd indeed suggest that you and Robsinden try to find a common ground on how to address that. It's not difficult to check the articles with a navbox and see whether they have sister project link-boxes, but as you indicate it may be a lot of articles. Maybe a WP:BOTREQ may help here. But no clue whether there would be a response there.
Re. "early close" – When I closed the RfC it was long passed "early close", despite a single late comment three days before I closed it.
Re. "is there any precedence for reopening a Rfc discussion because important and possibly determinative evidence came in too late to become a factor in the overall discussion?" Don't know whether there's precedence, and even if there is, I'd still recommend to start a new one per option suggestion #2 (and, in fact, #1) than reopen one with a no comment lapse of over two weeks. Also, as I indicated in the start of this comment above, the {{Wikipedia}} template is maybe too specific for articles with content on Wikipedia, as a WP:CIRCULAR-like exception, to extrapolate it to other navboxes, and, currently at least, not even stable enough to say it is an example of a viable exception.
PS. WP:Wall of text seems to work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the long post and ideas to move forward. I'll answer more in-depth sometime soon, only jumped onto the site for a little while and then off again. The 'Wall of text' Wikipedia link is almost good enough to transfer over into the body of Wikipedia itself, which, apparently, has no 'Wall of text' page (although many talk pages fit the bill). Thanks again! Randy Kryn 11:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

National World War I Memorial[edit]

Just so you know, I'm working on upgrading the existing article (which was formerly Pershing Park), and the upgrade should be done late today. I got sidetracked yesterday in upgrading Jan Scruggs, which took about six hours. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, @Tim1965:, thanks for the heads up. The page reads as if the World War I memorial is already an existing memorial, and there is even a photo. But I'll have a look at your page in a day or two to see how the present text on the page is mistaken. Thanks. Nice work on Jan Scruggs. Randy Kryn 21:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Unversal Science fiction template[edit]

Thanks for the vote on my template, Maybe I should have titled it ”Universal Pictures Science Fiction." I feel that as the most prolific maker of science fiction, it rated a template. Inkwell765 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Inkwell765:. You're very welcome. You know that you can just change the visible title without changing the name of the template. If you think it would be better accepted with that visible name, maybe that's how it should be labeled. Thank you for creating it. Randy Kryn 23:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited References to Hamlet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page To Be or Not to Be (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Martin Luther King, Jr. sidebar[edit]

A new one, you may want to work on. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking, don't you think we shall have a "Memorials to Martin Luther King, Jr." page? Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, nice to "see" you. There was a memorials list section on King's D.C. memorial page that someone removed a few months ago (and it could be put back as a See also section), and there are others listed elsewhere. I think most of them are on King's template as well. Related, I have no idea how many streets have been named for King, it seems every city in the states has one or two. Schools, parks, etc. would add to the total. So yes, having a page makes sense. I haven't worked on that new template yet, the bottom template seems to hold all the data needed and a smaller sidebar one should probably just hit the high notes. Randy Kryn 3:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of something akin to Memorials to John F. Kennedy for the article and akin to Template:JFKseries for "the highlights" of his life. I have added some to the template, see what you think. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Festivus[edit]

Just trying to improve an article that is bare-bones and out of date. Once a photo is added I never expected so many edits to a simple caption. Whether it's reindeer meat or even soy, it would still be referred to as a "meat-loaf". BTW, this is my last addition. I'm through. Edit it any way you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4marknelson (talkcontribs) 19:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and your edits have been very good. So please don't give up on Wikipedia, especially because of the actions of one editor. Let me explain the edits though, so your photo caption ends up in language which works for everyone. I've edited it again with different language, see if it seems better to you, and here's my thinking on it. First of all, I have said that in the past I've been a vegetarian activist, so I have bias. But by playing fairly, being editorially balanced, and never making up stuff, people with bias are allowed to work here on pages of topics that they've had a long-time interest in and/or knowledge level of. In fact, some of the finest work here is done by biased people. Making that work well is where good sources and common sense come in. The source that you linked to about the topic didn't say what the food was, because there is no record of what the food was. It's not mentioned in the script, and nobody present knows. They probably didn't eat it, and it could have easily been a prop (it was a long film shoot and it maybe wasn't something that was going to go bad quickly). The source's data is based upon its own poll of people who were just guessing what the thing was (and only given two choices!), and not based on a fact from any one who was in a position to know. So making it more neutral also makes it more accurate. And I really mean this: your edits have both improved the page and encouraged me to make quite a few edits of my own in different parts of the article, something I wouldn't have done if it wasn't for you bringing me back to the page. I think it now has more information presented and is also more fun, especially moving the "putting a clock in a bag and nailing it to a wall" data higher up the page and adding it to an appropriate already existing sentence. So please stick around, and nice picture and source (I wish we could use the screen shot of the scene that's in the source and not a representation, but that's not how things work here, since the image is copyrighted and owned by whoever owns the Seinfeld show). Randy Kryn 1:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Robert St. John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Look magazine
The Collegian (Hillsdale College) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Hill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)