User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2019/August
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ravenpuff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ITN recognition for Sergio Obeso Rivera
On 13 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sergio Obeso Rivera, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
SpencerT•C 17:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ravenpuff, thank you for helping with the above DYK article. I've checked on the capitalisation of card names and suits and there is no consistency among the sources. American authors, Morehead and Mott-Smith, use lower case (queen of spades), Sir Michael Dummett uses title case (Queen of Spades) and David Parlett capitalises the rank but not the suit (Queen of spades). None of them are wrong. I tend to follow Dummett, especially as it helps to distinguish between six, the number of cards, players, chips, etc, and Six, the card with a six on it. I think the most important thing is consistency within articles. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: Regarding consistency within articles, we should strive to follow the Manual of Style wherever possible. In particular, MOS:GAMECAPS specifies that
venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to sports, games, and activities are given in lower-case
; among the examples provided isqueen of diamonds
. Hence, we should be de-capitalising card names and suits in the article. I don't think that potential confusion between the number on a card and the number of players etc. is an issue serious enough to merit the former being capitalised. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)- There is a creative tension on Wikipedia between the requirement to be encyclopaedic and reflect authoritative sources and the MOS which is just our editorial consensus on the "the way we do things around here". Too slavish an adoption of the latter results in Wikipedia failing to be encyclopaedic and promoting its own brand that overrides what the sources are saying and, often, ignores regional differences in spelling, style and usage. So I don't agree that MOS takes precedence; if anything, the sources should. But I don't generally die in a ditch over this as long as it doesn't turn into a crusade to prefer one style over another when the sources reflect both. We live quite happily with WP:ENGVAR and I think that's a good model. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: My attitude towards MOS vs RS adherence is roughly the same as yours: sometimes it's worth it to IAR and disregard the MOS on a certain issue; it also isn't a hill on which I'm willing to die. However, I don't think it's completely inflexible in its prescriptions towards style, but allows a certain diversity of it in line with reality (e.g. ENGVAR, as you noted). There's certainly room for multiple stylistic options that still wouldn't run afoul of the MOS, whose main role is to encourage a standard look and feel for articles on enwiki, but without ignoring any other considerations. My rationale for the card numbers/suits issue above is that, as you pointed out, different authors use subtly different capitalisation styles in referring to cards. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be a consensus among reliable sources as to a single capitalisation style for us to use in the article, which means that we should defer to the next best alternative: MOS:GAMECAPS. Now, I'm sure that you know more about classic French card games than I, so I'll leave the final decision about what to use in the article to you, but these are just my thoughts on the issue. Cheers. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is a creative tension on Wikipedia between the requirement to be encyclopaedic and reflect authoritative sources and the MOS which is just our editorial consensus on the "the way we do things around here". Too slavish an adoption of the latter results in Wikipedia failing to be encyclopaedic and promoting its own brand that overrides what the sources are saying and, often, ignores regional differences in spelling, style and usage. So I don't agree that MOS takes precedence; if anything, the sources should. But I don't generally die in a ditch over this as long as it doesn't turn into a crusade to prefer one style over another when the sources reflect both. We live quite happily with WP:ENGVAR and I think that's a good model. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Those two edits don't look right to me ... I don't mean that you shouldn't make the SEAOFBLUE edit, only that you should make it during the blurb review or at TFAR (if there is one) rather than a few days before the article hits the Main Page, because that cuts everyone else out of the loop. There's a good reason to link to the list of Secretaries of State. Does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Dank: Thanks for informing me; I'll keep it in mind. Re sea of blue: I felt like it was worth removing the link to the secretaries list, mainly because it is of lesser importance in comparison to the adjacent "secretary of state" link already present, where readers can readily access the list article from a hatnote there. Feel free to undo my edit if you feel that it's necessary. Anyway, is there a dedicated page for TFA blurb reviews on enwiki, or is it just TFAR? I can't seem to find it. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Blurb review happens on the talk pages of the individual FACs, as each one is promoted. Join us. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
POTD
Hi Ravenpuff. Thanks for the nomination for POTD. Nice to see my work on the main page. However there were a couple of problems. The first you can see here which was fixed by a wikifriend as I was unavailable earlier today. I don't want to draw more attention to that than necessary, but please take care when awarding credit to follow only the attribution name indicated on the file description page, rather than trying to work out other names: it is a serious matter. I didn't get any notification in advance of the main page appearance, which is required as a courtesy and to help fix any issues in advance. You might want to check if there are similar problems with other nominations you have made. -- Colin°Talk 15:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: Thanks for notifying me. My apologies for not using the name as stated on the file description page; I'll bear that in mind for future POTD noms. On a related note, I don't think credit is currently given for pictures being scheduled for POTD, separate from the standard FP credit. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand scheduling POTD is a thankless job. Thank you for doing it! On a related note, I have noticed you are scheduling the most recent FP instead of the oldest. We generally have a policy of first-in first-out. Please favor the oldest FP to gain promotion, while also making sure there is variety. The Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page sorts the FPs in order of promotion date, with the first page being the oldest. However, many of the FPs on the first page of the category are not possible to post right now. I recommend you start on page 2. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've indeed taken a look at that category, yes, but, as you mentioned, we should also aim for some variety in POTD selections. One way in which I've been selecting POTDs is going to a less-featured category at WP:FP and generally choosing the oldest one that hasn't been used. Sometimes, I also prefer to choose pictures with associated articles of good quality (e.g. North Cascades National Park, which is an FA). That said, I'll make sure to use more older POTDs, in keeping with the FIFO principle (although I'd also argue that we haven't really been consistent in following it in the past either). Cheers. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the difficulty and thank you for any effort you put into following it. As all rules on Wikipedia, when all else fails, ignore the rule. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: Thanks! If I remember correctly, you were also involved in a few POTDs a couple months ago. Some help in scheduling upcoming appearances would be much appreciated. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Quite so, agreed. And thanks for stepping up to fill in the gaps in the past week or two, Ravenpuff. I have been very busy in real life, so haven't been able to do as much as usual but hopefully will be a bit more back to normal in the near future. Regarding the attribution, generally I go with whatever is mentioned on the FP nomination page, in this case Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wemyss Bay railway station. For images credited to a Wikipedia user we should be careful about trying find out and write full names per WP:OUTING. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: Thanks! If I remember correctly, you were also involved in a few POTDs a couple months ago. Some help in scheduling upcoming appearances would be much appreciated. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the difficulty and thank you for any effort you put into following it. As all rules on Wikipedia, when all else fails, ignore the rule. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've indeed taken a look at that category, yes, but, as you mentioned, we should also aim for some variety in POTD selections. One way in which I've been selecting POTDs is going to a less-featured category at WP:FP and generally choosing the oldest one that hasn't been used. Sometimes, I also prefer to choose pictures with associated articles of good quality (e.g. North Cascades National Park, which is an FA). That said, I'll make sure to use more older POTDs, in keeping with the FIFO principle (although I'd also argue that we haven't really been consistent in following it in the past either). Cheers. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand scheduling POTD is a thankless job. Thank you for doing it! On a related note, I have noticed you are scheduling the most recent FP instead of the oldest. We generally have a policy of first-in first-out. Please favor the oldest FP to gain promotion, while also making sure there is variety. The Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page sorts the FPs in order of promotion date, with the first page being the oldest. However, many of the FPs on the first page of the category are not possible to post right now. I recommend you start on page 2. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Italics for hymns
Regarding your recent edits applying italics to titles of hymns: I think hymns are minor works for the purpose of Wikipedia's MoS, and italics are not supported for such works by MOS:NOITALIC and MOS:MINORWORKS (where it says additionally, "a title of a short non-English work simply receives quotation marks"). This is widely, but not universally, applied, but unless those guideline are changed, I suggest you return the hymns you changed to non-italic type. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Michael Bednarek: As I see it, many articles on Catholic hymns have already been italicised for some time: for example, Salve Regina, Ubi caritas and Rorate caeli. There's possibly an argument to be made that this doesn't conform with MOS:MINORWORKS, however; perhaps you could initiate an RfC to decide whether this is the case. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ideally, all hymns - whatever language and denomination - should be "straight", per the guideline Michael quoted. If you see some not yet so, please change. Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis etc., see also Category:Lutheran hymns - There are just too many to get around to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've undone most of my italicisation edits; thanks for informing. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ideally, all hymns - whatever language and denomination - should be "straight", per the guideline Michael quoted. If you see some not yet so, please change. Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis etc., see also Category:Lutheran hymns - There are just too many to get around to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Achille Silvestrini
On 30 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Achille Silvestrini, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.