This user uses PGP for secure communications (click to view this user's key)
This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user helped get "Golden Cue" listed at Did You Know on the main page on June 2, 2010.
This user helped get "William A. Spinks" listed at Did You Know on the main page on March 2, 2007.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "Cornershot" become a good article on July 24, 2006.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "Jasmin Ouschan" become a good article on September 12, 2009.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "William A. Spinks" become a good article on April 22, 2016.
This user is a WikiGnome
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
Email this user
This user has email notifications enabled.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is not an admin.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least ten years.
Trout this user
This user is a metapedian.
This user is a member of the WikiFun Police.

User talk:SMcCandlish

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

Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

No RfAs or RfBs reported by Cyberbot I since 21:13 8/8/2018 (UTC)

Template-edit requests, etc.

0 template-protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Updated as needed. Last updated: 13:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaLYmblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit/delete other users' personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news



Most recent poster here: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:#Top|talk]])

Mini-toolbox:

Articles for deletion

Contents

As of 2018-08-19 , SMcCandlish is Somewhat Busy.
I will probably check Wikipedia periodically, but I may not be consistently participating or editing until ... indefinitely? (I'm on occasionally but may disappear for days or longer).

Wikimood
Wikimood 01.png
[purge] [edit]
Please stay in the top 3 segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Old stuff to resolve eventually[edit]

Cueless billiards[edit]

Unresolved: Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.
Extended content

Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Crud fits for sure. And if the variant in it is sourceable, I'm sure some military editor will fork it into a separate article eventually. I think at least some variants of bar billiards are played with hands and some bagatelle split-offs probably were, too (Shamos goes into loads of them, but I get them all mixed up, mostly because they have foreign names). And there's bocce billiards, article I've not written yet. Very fun game. Kept my sister and I busy for 3 hours once. Her husband (Air Force doctor) actually plays crud on a regular basis; maybe there's a connection. She beat me several times, so it must be from crud-playing. Hand pool might be its own article eventually. Anyway, I guess it depends upon your "categorization politics". Mine are pretty liberal - I like to put stuff into a logical category as long as there are multiple items for it (there'll be two as soon as you're done with f.b., since we have crud), and especially if there are multiple parent categories (that will be the case here), and especially especially if the split parallels the category structure of another related category branch (I can't think of a parallel here, so this criterion of mine is not a check mark in this case), and so on. A bunch of factors really. I kind of wallow in that stuff. Not sure why I dig the category space so much. Less psychodrama, I guess. >;-) In my entire time here, I can only think of maybe one categorization decision I've made that got nuked at CfD. And I'm a pretty aggressive categorizer, too; I totally overhauled Category:Pinball just for the heck of it and will probably do the same to Category:Darts soon.
PS: I'm not wedded to the "cueless billiards" name idea; it just seemed more concise than "cueless developments from cue sports" or whatever.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no "categorization politics". It's not an area that I think about a lot or has ever interested me so it's good there are people like you. If there is to be a category on this, "cueless billiards" seems fine to me. By the way, just posted Yank Adams as an adjunct to the finger billiards article I started.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool; I'd never even heard of him. This one looks like a good DYK; just the fact that there was Finger Billiards World Championship contention is funky enough, probably. You still citing that old version of Shamos? You really oughta get the 1999 version; it can be had from Amazon for cheap and has a bunch of updates. I actually put my old version in the recycle bin as not worth saving. Heh. PS: You seen Stein & Rubino 3rd ed.? I got one for the xmas before the one that just passed, from what was then a really good girlfriend. >;-) It's a-verra, verra nahce. Over 100 new pages, I think (mostly illustrations). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the Blue Book of Pool Cues too for under $200 total. Here it is for $160, plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not IPs they're logging, it's your credit card. You have to give them one in order to get the trial so that they can automatically charge you if you miss the cancellation deadline. Regarding the Blue Book, of all these books, that's the one that get's stale, that is, if you use it for actual quotes, which I do all the time, both for answer to questions and for selling, buying, etc. Yeah I start procrastinating too. I did all that work on Mingaud and now I can't get myself to go back. I also did reams of research on Hurricane Tony Ellin (thugh I found so little; I really felt bad when he died; I met him a few times, seemed like a really great guy), Masako Katsura and others but still haven't moved on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the credit card. I'll have to see if the PayPal plugin has been updated to work with the new Firefox. If so, that's our solution - it generates a new valid card number every time you use it (they always feed from your single PayPal account). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
PayPal Plugin ist kaput. Some banks now issue credit card accounts that make use of virtual card numbers, but mine's not one of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a newspaperarchive.com three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sad...[edit]

How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading stuff from that era, it's also amazing how important billiards (in the three-ball sense) was back then, with sometimes multiple-page stories in newspapers about each turn in a long match, and so on. It's like snooker is today in the UK. PS: I saw that you found evidence of a billiards stage comedy there. I'd never heard of it! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Jackpot. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice find! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at the main page[edit]

Unresolved: Katsura News added (with new TFA section) to WP:CUE; need to see if I can add anything useful to Mingaud article.
Extended content

Look at the main page --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to have seen this near to the time I left it, it might be a little cryptic without explanation. Masako Katsura was today's featured article on January 31, 2011.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Supah-dupah! That kicks. WP:CUE's (and your?) first TFA, yes?! And yeah I have been away a lot lately. Long story. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, my first, though I have another in the works (not billiards related). I think François Mingaud could be a candidate in the near future. I really wanted to work it up to near FA level before posting it but another user created it recently, not realizing my draft existed, and once they did realize, copied some of my content without proper copyright attribution and posted to DYK. I have done a history merge though the newer, far less developed content is what's seen in the article now. I'm going to merge the old with the new soon. Glad to see your back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
My front and sides are visible too. ;-) Anyway, glad you beat me to Mingaud. I'd been thinking of doing that one myself, but it seemed a bit daunting. I may have some tidbits for it. Lemme know when your merged version goes up, and I'll see what I have that might not already be in there. Probably not earthshaking, just a few things I found in 1800s-1910s books. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some more notes on Crystalate[edit]

Unresolved: New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.
Extended content

Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[3]; info about making records:[4]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[5]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991[6]; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:[7]. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've worked most of it in. Fences&Windows 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool! From what I can tell, entirely different parties held the trademark in different markets. I can't find a link between Crystalate Mfg. Co. Ltd. (mostly records, though billiard balls early on) and the main billiard ball mfr. in the UK, who later came up with "Super Crystalate". I'm not sure the term was even used in the U.S. at all, despite the formulation having been originally patented there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAL[edit]

Unresolved: Not done yet, last I looked.
Extended content

No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready[edit]

Unresolved: Needs to be renewed
Extended content

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved[edit]

Unresolved: Needs to be renewed.
Extended content

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

  • Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
  • If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
  • Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
  • Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
  • If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yay! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Circa[edit]

Unresolved: Need to file the RfC.
Extended content

This edit explains how to write "ca.", which is still discouraged at MOS:#Abbreviations, WP:YEAR, WP:SMOS#Abbreviations, and maybe MOS:DOB, and after you must have read my complaint and ordeal at WT:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Circa. Either allow "ca." or don't allow "ca.", I don't care which, but do it consistently. Art LaPella (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good WP:RFC. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been hard to get opinions on circa in the past. Anyway, can I undo that edit, until when and if someone wants to edit the other guidelines to match? If we leave it there indefinitely, nobody will notice except me. Art LaPella (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't care; this will have to be dealt with in an RfC anyway. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Done (now I don't need to wonder if the RfC will ever be acted on :) ) Art LaPella (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright[edit]

Unresolved: Need to fix William A. Spinks, etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.
Extended content

That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a bunch of archiving yesterday. This page was HUGE. It'll get there again. I'd forgotten MCQ existed. Can you please add it to the DAB hatnote at top of and "See also" at bottom of WP:COPYRIGHT? Its conspicuous absence is precisely why I ened up at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright! Haven't seen your balkline response yet; will go look. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hee Haw[edit]

Unresolved: Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation.
Extended content

Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers and editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. Landrace has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and breed not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What is happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether pig Latin is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys – and the naming form that took, i.e. Poitou donkey not Poitou (donkey), I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: [8] or breed or [9]. I think you and I agree that the Palomino horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the Landrace article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split Natural breed out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a traditional breed, though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to landrace now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Aye, it's on my to-do list. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians).
The good thing about breeds wrt Wikipedia is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Wikipedia to do so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been reluctant to use landrace much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before wikipedia either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between selective breeding and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like Kiger Mustang, which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, Chiweenies? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of corn growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that MRSA is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through mostly natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the St Johns water dog and Maine Coon cat are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundant sentence?[edit]

Unresolved: Work to integrate WP:NCFLORA and WP:NCFAUNA stuff into MOS:ORGANISMS not completed yet?
Extended content

The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed?

There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely different groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
  2. I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there[10], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
  2. I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
  2. Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)



Note to self[edit]

Unresolved

Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Diacritics[edit]

Unresolved: An anti-diacritics pseudo-guideline is a problem and needs an RfC.

Greetings. I was referring to conventions like "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics.". Cédric HATES TPP. 23:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: Wow, thanks for drawing that to my attention. Don't know how that one slipped past the radar. That is actually a bogus WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "guideline" and needs to be fixed! My point still stands, though, that "any" covers both this any any new proposal someone might come up with. :-) Anyway, I'm not sure how to deal with the "screw the MoS, we're going to ban diacritics in hockey" crap, other than probably an RfC hosted at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
For your information, I'm using "any and all" on the template so both our grounds can be covered. Cédric HATES TPP. 05:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Fortunately, the universe did not implode.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent mini-tutorial[edit]

Unresolved: Still need to do that essay page.

Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thanks. I need to copy that into an essay page. As far as I know, the concepts are not clearly covered in any of those places, nor clearly enough even at Help:CS1 (which is dense and overlong as it is). The e-book matters bear some researching. I'm very curious whether particular formats (Nook, etc.) paginate consistently between viewers. For Web-accessible ones, I would think that the page numbering that appears in the Web app is good enough if it's consistent (e.g., between a PC and a smart phone) when the reader clicks the URL in the citation. I suppose one could also use |at= to provide details if the "page" has to be explained in some way. I try to rely on better-than-page-number locations when possible, e.g. specific entries in dictionaries and other works with multiple entries per page (numbered sections in manuals, etc.), but for some e-books this isn't possible – some are just continuous texts. One could probably use something like |at=in the paragraph beginning "The supersegemental chalcolithic metastasis is ..." about 40% into the document, in a pinch. I guess we do need to figure this stuff out since such sources are increasingly common.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes (about figuring out how to reference e-books), though I suspect existing (non-WP) citation styles have addressed this already (no need to re-invent the wheel). This is a slightly different case, though. It is a digitisation of an existing (physical) book that has no page numbers. If I had the book in front of me (actually, it was only published as a single copy, so it is not a 'publication' in that traditional sense of many copies being produced), the problem with page numbers would still exist. I wonder if the 'digital viewer' should be thought of as a 'via' thingy? In the same way that (technically) Google Books and archive.org digital copies of old books are just re-transmitting, and re-distributing the material (is wikisource also a 'via' sort of thing?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: Ah, I see. I guess I would treat it as a |via=, and same with WikiSource, which in this respect is essentially like Google Books or Project Gutenberg. I think your conundrum has come up various times with arXiv papers, that have not been paginated visibly except in later publication (behind a journal paywall and not examined). Back to the broader matter: Some want to treat WikiSource and even Gutenberg as republishers, but I think that's giving them undue editorial credit and splitting too fine a hair. Was thinking on the general unpaginated and mis-paginated e-sources matter while on the train, and came to the conclusion that for a short, unpaginated work with no subsections, one might give something like |at=in paragraph 23, and for a much longer one use the |at=in the paragraph beginning "..." trick. A straight up |pages=82–83 would work for an e-book with hard-coded meta-data pagination that is consistent between apps/platforms and no visual pagination. On the other hand, use the visual pagination in an e-book that has it, even if it doesn't match the e-book format's digital pagination, since the pagination in the visual content would match that of a paper copy; one might include a note that the pagination is that visible in the content if it conflicts with what the e-book reader says (this comes up a lot with PDFs, for one thing - I have many that include cover scans, and the PDF viewers treat that as p. 1, then other front matter as p. 2, etc., with the content's p. 1 being something like PDF p. 7).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)



Current threads[edit]

Hi[edit]

Seeing that Kingsindian and myself understand Version 2 completely differently over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, could you please tell us what your opinion is, about the situation on Mausoleum of Abu Huraira: did editor C break the rules' according to Version 2, or not? (I have no intention of reporting anyone, but I really need to know,....or I will be reported next, if I have gotten it wrong.) Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Well, given that it's an open question at ArbCom, I'm skeptical anyone would be addressed under version 2 until after ArbCom decides that is the interpretation to apply, if they do so. I would need to see specific diffs to know what "danger" you or the other editor might think they're in. I would think in the interim that acting as if version 2 is in effect is safest, because the Arbs chiming in so far are leaning toward that direction (or were as of yesterday – I haven't looked since then), and it's the safer interpretations if some admins already use that interpretation, and it's more in keeping with the spirit/point of it, and of course WP:THEREISNODEADLINE.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, to repeat: I have no intention of reporting anyone, BUT: I need to know, as I know with about 100% certainty that I will be reported if I break any rules. (I normally write Palestinian history, which means that......not everybody loves me, put it that way. The threshold of reporting me to the dramah boards is rather low, Ive been reported twice just this last half year, for basically misreading things, see [11][12])
As it is, at the moment, Kingindian and I have completely opposite opinion on how Version 2 is to be understood, and I really need a clear answer to which one of us is correct. Huldra (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra and Kingsindian: Only ArbCom can give you one. Only the current ArbCom members can determine which interpretation prevails (or, technically, they could refuse to decide and leave it up to WP:AE admins' interpretation, but I predict they'll not do that because it would perpetuate rather than solve the conflict). I think the safe bet is to presume that version 2 will prevail (based on Arbs' responses so far), and further to assume that it means that if A reverts B, and C un-reverts B, and D re-reverts C, that for A, B, and C the "clock" starts from D's re-revert. It may mean more waiting (and ArbCom might not go that far with it), but I cannot see how that interpretation can go wrong as a "how to stay out of trouble" matter. Meanwhile, it's already been more than 24 hours since you raised this question with me, and what the "real" interpretation is remains an open question at WP:ARCA, so I don't think you or anyone else need worry about whether some edits from over a day ago might or might not technically might have been sanctionable. It's already stale, and if none of you are editwarring, especially in ways that seem to be system-gaming the confusion about what the the exact 1RR rule is in this case, then no one would take action against any of you, because sanctions are meant to be preventative not a form of retroactive punishment. Have some ice cream and watch a comedy; relax. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
To Huldra: as of this moment, you can continue as normal. If this widespread insanity actually results in a rule change to version 2, then you can really start to worry. Kingsindian   06:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The version 3 compromise looks promising.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

sorry i edited the blade runner article[edit]

can u tell me if it has robots though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handbabyy (talkcontribs) 08:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Handbabyy: Please sign your posts (put ~~~~ at the end), and new posts go at the bottom (took me a while to get used to that, too). We have robots today, so there are surely robots in the Blade Runner fictional universe. However, The stories in Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 focus on genetically engineered artificial life, not mechanical. I.e., they were grown in a lab, not built in a shop. So, depending on your definitions, the films either are not about robots at all, or are a "re-imagining" of and a continuation of robot-themed fiction into the era of genetic engineering, much as biological zombie and vampire fiction, in which those conditions are viruses, are a bio-era outgrowth of older genres about them as undead spirits. I don't know if our articles on the films really get into this sort of thing, but there are numerous books in the film studies vein that analyze the original Blade Runner in detail. Try an Amazon books search on "Blade Runner" [13]. I have several of these books and some of them are quite good (I liked Retrofitting Blade Runner and Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner), though not every bit of them is great. PS: Even in Philip K. Dick's original 1968 novel, which was about "androids", they had a biological as well as mechanical component, so that wasn't new to the film, just turned up a notch.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts[edit]

I disagree with your assertion, expressed elsewhere, that the mathematics wiki project is somehow a narrow focus group for the purposes of the mathematics manual of style. MOSMATH dates back to 2002 and is one of the earliest and most well-established parts of the MOS. The math project is the most knowledgeable group on the wiki about the actual styles used in mathematics articles, and members of the project have long collaborated on that page for the benefit of the wiki. It would be absurd not to point them to potential changes that would affect thousands of mathematics articles.

But the main reason I wanted to write is about the framing of the closed RFC. From my perspective, no MOS page has ever said that colons cannot be used for indenting displayed mathematical formulas. This is, undoubtedly, why featured articles continue to use colons. So I see no actual CONLEVEL disagreement. By claiming there is a disagreement, I believe you were saying that there is another MOS page which says colons cannot be used. I don't see any page that says so, so I interpreted the RFC as saying that you wanted to change the Wikipedia style to say that colons cannot be used (as was done for block quotes, but not for other indented content, in the past). That position was rejected in the RFC. And so there is still no conflict: no other MOS page says not to use colons for mathematical, chemical, or other formulas.

You have also described MOSMATH as a "fork", but MOSMATH predates most of the rest of the MOS, and the guidance about how to indent mathematical formulas is very well established (since 2002). So there does not seem to be any "forking" going on with the page. Moreover, I f there were a CONLEVEL disagreement because of language recently added to other pages, it seems that those other pages might not accurately reflect the long term consensus about how to format mathematical formulas - those other pages, in effect, would be attempting to fork the previously existing directions from MOSMATH.

I can also point out that I'm quite knowledgeable about HTML and programming. I have edited the Mediawiki source for my local installs and I wrote the WP 1.0 bot including its web interface. Our disagreements are not based on technical misunderstandings about how to generate HTML. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot of mostly unrelated stuff to cover. I'm just going to listify these points for expediency (and if I seem angry in any of it, be assured that I'm not):
  1. How old the wikiproject is, and how much people like it, and whether the people in it are smart and edit in good faith (of course they are and do) has nothing to do with whether it's narrowly topical compared to VPTECH, which is the only comparison I made.
  2. It's correct that no MoS page has said "colons cannot be used ..."; the RfC didn't posit that one should say that, nor did the edit the RfC was about say that, either. You just made it up out of thin air, and misled the wikiproject that such a proposal was being made, so of course they all showed up and bloc voted against it in confused terms and with much hair-pulling and angsty wailing. Notifying the wikiproject of the discussion made perfect sense. Doing so in entirely misleading and alarming terms did not. I assume that happened out of misapprehension not craft, and blame myself in part for not having been clearer from the start about why not to recommend : markup when we have alternatives now and the problems with the old markup are now well-known.
  3. The reasons FAs use colons for indentation are a) most of them pre-date the templates that do this more accessibly and MoS advice to use them, b) few MoS points are ever "enforced" at FAC (only those that reviewers happen to both notice and give a damn about), c) FAC "stewards" are frequently hostile (sometimes really excessively so) to MoS gnoming to bring old FAs into compliance with current standards, and d) this sort of markup usability thing is precisely the kind of MoS gnome geekery that hardly anyone works on and which only very slowly makes its way into the "live" code of the encyclopedia. Even if an actual WP policy mandated use of accessible code for this instead of abuse of <dd> list markup it would probably take years to implement (though of course it will never be a policy-level matter).
  4. "[F]or mathematical, chemical, or other formulas" is completely irrelevant. What is on the right of the indent has nothing to do with the HTML and CSS markup used to induce the indentation; they're separate domains. It could be a poem or an interlinear gloss or a diagram of flies mating, and the means for indenting it all are identical, as are concerns about doing it in a crappy way just because it's easier by a few characters. It's a layout and accessibility and WP:REUSE and code maintainability matter, a meta-level above the topic of the content being indented.
  5. If the maths people want to get the MW developers to hack <math> to support an indentation system within that x-tag, that's fine and dandy, but has jack to do with whether we should continue abusing <dd> list markup for visual layout. It's essentially the same debate as the ancient one about misuse of tables for webpage design layout.
  6. Maths concerns are also completely irrelevant to the WP:CONLEVEL issues that are what the RfC was really about. Due to your misleading canvassing of WT:MATHS, none of that got discussed; it was all just a bunch of panicked off-topic noise from maths editors who did not understand the RfC because you confused them about it with a chicken-little story. That sounds more pissy than I really mean it. RfCs get derailed all the time, and I could have written that one better, and notified the wikiproject myself; live and learn. Reasonable discussions are emerging from it, despite the FUD, both at WT:MOSMATH and at Phabricator, so I consider it an overall step forward, despite the verbal abuse I've suffered at Nyttend's hands. I was never going to bother objecting to your canvassing until Nyttend forced my hand by accusing me of unbalancing the RfC when all I did was try to get some people to actually pay attention to what it said rather than what you told them it said.
  7. I did not describe MOSMATH as a fork of anything. I described – entirely correctly – something happening at MOSMATH as WP:POLICYFORKing: the "I don't understand, I'm lazy, I don't like change, or this is my page anyway"-style reverting at MOS:MATH to prevent it from being updated to agree with WP:MOS and MOS:ACCESS in deprecating problematic markup and replacing it with demonstrably better markup. It's Not related in any way to how long a page has been around or how long it has said something; it's only about a maths MoS subpage trying to fight (without even any legitimate cause!) against the main MoS page and against the accessibility MoS page about an accessibility matter, which is not a maths matter. It's no different from, say, WikiProject Comics deciding the MOS:TEXT doesn't apply to them and topics they think they "owns" and thus they can go bold-face and ALL-CAPS and turn purple all the names of all superheroes in articles.
  8. You keep recycling this argument that it's about "how to format mathematical formulas". It's not. It has to do with how to indent content of any kind. Nothing anywhere in this debate has any effect on anything between the <math>...</math> beginning and end tags. If it's still not clear, let me try this analogy: If your city statutes prohibit hunting animals within the city limits, you don't get a free pass to go around shotgunning rats just because you know a whole lot about rats and how to hunt them. Not even if you're sure something needs to be done about rats. Especially when you've been provided with well-tested rat traps as an alternative. Even if you really like running around shooting them instead. And even if your family's been shooting them since before the city was incorporated. Even if you're doing it on your own property. And even if you don't understand why its better to trap them than to go around shooting even. Even if you still don't understand, after people explain to you that you're injuring others in your shooting sprees. Even if you rabble-rouse your gun club with a false story that the ordinance against hunting in city limits is actually a statute that plans to take away all their guns. Even if the governor is a friend of yours and verbally abuses one of your city councilmen in public because the governor doesn't agree with the statute the city passed.
  9. No one said anything about whether you understand how to generate HTML. It's as if you just don't give a damn whether the HTML generated is valid, conformant, and accessible, versus just expedient to generate with shortcuts like ":" even if it's wrong. "As long as it looks okay to me with my eyesight on my browser, that's good enough" is the message you're sending. I don't read minds, so I have no idea what your intent is. I don't work in intent, I work in actual results. Abusing : for visual indentation does not produce good results, any more than using White Out on your teeth to make them look clean from a distance is an actual tooth cleaning.
  10. Finally, Accessible talk pages are a lost cause until we have better software for discussions. Accessible markup in articles is not a lost cause. We have template replacements for : that not only work great, they actually work better. The only cost is typing a few extra characters to use them. If maths people couldn't handle that, they also couldn't handled maths markup, or wikimarkup in general. You, me, and the other respondents to the RfC and related discussions have already spent more characters and time arguing at the guideline talk page, the RfC, and my talk page than would have been needed to fix hundreds of articles to use the better markup.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Re (2): If no other MOS page says colons cannot be used, and MOSMATH says they can, there is no CONLEVEL issue to start with, because there is no conflict between pages. The only way to see a conflict is to believe that some MOS page forbids the use of colons. Indeed, just today you wrote that MOSMATH should "conform with current main-MoS and MOS:ACCESS advice" - but MOSMATH does agree with these pages, because they have always treated colons as an acceptable way to indent things, possibly apart from block quotations. This is why it was important, in my opinion, for the RFC to establish clearly that colons are an acceptable way to indent formulas, and why I focused on that issue in the RFC. The deeper issue here is not CONLEVEL, in my opinion, the issue is that other MOS pages might be misread to suggest that colons cannot be used to indent formulas. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about whether anyone "can" use colons to indent (you "can" use any markup you can think of to do that, while others definitely also can replace it if it sucks). It's about editwarring at a subordinate MoS page to thwart advice from the main MoS page (which has precedence over all MoS pages) and from the accessibility MoS, both of which make it clear that colons for indentation are a problem and that it's preferable to use a more accessible solution. This is a matter that has nothing to do with maths but to do with accessible page layout and standards-conformant markup in general. This is about a conflict in guideline wording and about WP:CONLEVEL precedence.

No one can be punished for or utterly prohibited from doing anything by any guideline, so this whole "cannot" and "says they can" stuff is entirely off-topic. The indentation-related material at the main MoS is not about block quotations (which auto-indent) but about how to indent everything but block quotations; it's right there in plain English. The material at MOS:ACCESS on colon-indents being a poor idea for specific reasons has nothing to do with maths or quotes in particular but all indented content. The "use a colon to indent" idea you like at MOS:MATHS has nothing to do with maths, but about content behing shifted visually to the right. WP:Writing policy is hard, and if you're having trouble following three guidelines' wording in a row, this may not be your long suit, even if you're amazing with calculus. This is not about "indent[ing] formulas" in particular. Formulas are just content; this is about indenting content, which might be pictures or code snippets, or sports scores, or formulae, or anything else people happen to be indenting.

If you still do not absorb this, and want to recycle your "but maths ..." and "what I like isn't banned" and "there is no guideline conflict" arguments, just don't. The accessibility problem will eventually be fixed one way or another (next month, in 2027, who knows) whether you understand or not. You just go right ahead and keep using colons; others will replace them with better markup after the fact, just as we replace "teh" typos with "the", and add missing alt text to images, and so on.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  05:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Extended content
Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of areas of London[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of areas of London. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jimmy White's 2: Cueball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25[edit]

Extended content

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

  • OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Power~Enwiki at DRV[edit]

I saw your note in the now-closed RFA, and I'm entirely puzzled: That DRV is still open with a day or two to go, and so the fact that the article hasn't been restored really doesn't say anything--and if you read the rest of the DRV, it certainly says that a lot of non-inclusionist admins also thought the A7 was improper. And... him invoking SNOW? Really? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: ah I had not noticed the DRV was still open. I tend to agree with the WP:NOT#BUREAU arguments made there. I also agree with you that Power-enwiki was mis-citing SNOW, but it is not a policy or guideline, so it seems immaterial. Even those seeking to overturn the deletion on technical CSD grounds are mostly !voting to send it to AfD – they don't think the article will be kept, only that it shouldn't've been speedied. I'm not in a frame of mind to castigate an RfA candidate for having their own interpretation of an essay, or for agreeing that a bad article is bad, or for not jumping on the "process is more important than common sense, and NOT#BUREAU policy doesn't apply when I don't want it to apply" bandwagon.

I had actually already concluded to oppose the candidate on other grounds, though, that are closer to my concerns about admins than "perfection" in deletion squabbling. (RfA was withdrawn before I got around to it.) Yes, I know many editors care more about that than just about anything, and even vote against candidates for "being wrong" in AfDs more than 5% of the time, or for ever even once having tagged something incorrectly (in the view of the RfA voter) for CfD. I'm not among these people. I'm way more concerned about the know-it-all attitude and temperament issues, plus general lack of experience (time-wise – he actually seems to meet my 10K edits threshold, though I expect little of that to be automated). Someone like TonyBallioni, for example, might have made a good admin that soon, due to conscientious, focused absorption of policy and process while also being an active content editor (I'm not meaning to toot TB's horn over-much, his RfA is just fresh in mind – he was a total shoo-in at 14 months, an unusual landslide support); but Power-enwiki isn't in that category, and most candidates are not. This is one of the reasons I've supported a one-year minimum for RfA the entire time I've been here (and I would even buy into 18 months or so). I know many people hate the idea, but it's a philosophical and emotional, not practical, objection.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for a fully detailed rationale, which is more explanation than I expected or I think you owe. I just wanted to point out something... and I find I agree with you on all of these points. A year isn't too much, when we're now treating admins as U.S. Federal judges, with for-life appointments. If I ever run for RFA again (which I have toyed with, but don't have enough time to invest for it to be worth the hassle, and I'm pretty sure some folks are still mad at me 5 years after I got voted off ArbCom), I would run with the condition of yearly reelection. That is, I think the best way out of RfA being too big a deal is the ending of "well, now I'm an admin, now I can show my true colors" problem. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm a chatty cathy about internal stuff. :-) And I'm not perturbed in any way by people challenging what I say at RfA (or elsewhere); I just may argue a bit for my position if I thought about it hard before posting it!

Glad you brought this stuff up. Adminship's always been a for-life appointment, other than we've belatedly instituted inactive-admin auto-desysopping, for security reasons, and of course bad-acting admins can be removed, like judges who break the law. The community treating the position like something super-serious is ArbCom's doing, by inventing discretionary sanctions, which made it super-serious. While it has been somewhat effective at addressing a specific problem (uncivil, obsessive editwarring and battlegrounding in particular topic areas), DS is a blunt and heavy-handed tool, with little effective oversight. This has had consequences. It's exactly the same kind of double-edged sword as SWAT teams – great for taking out organized groups of heavily armed felons, but at the cost of public faith in "officer friendly", because a militarized police force is dangerous and abuses its power. Adminship was not a big deal ... only for as long as it was not a big deal. The power to arbitrarily issues block and bans of various kinds, and impose article-level restrictions (which lead to cascading series of blocks and T-bans), without any process other than an old case saying a topic area is under DS, and virtually no recourse (AE and ArbCom virtually never overturn a DS action) is very powerful, and all power leads to abuse.

I've also often thought of doing something like a promise of yearly re-election, when I temporarily forget I don't really want to be an admin. I would definitely support the idea that all adminships should be reconfirmed annually, though likely with lower criteria (50+%) passage. I think that would actually reduce the "adminship is a super-mega-huge deal" perception, for the reason you gave and an additional one: If we were pass-or-failing people (mostly passing them) every week, then new candidates would be subject to less of a hostile gauntlet, out of the process being more routine foo it not being as hard to get rid of "badmins". Our only process now is ArbCom, and it's nearly impossible to invoke successfully except against an admin so off the rails ArbCom has no choice but to act or face censure from the community. Another positive effect of such an annual reconfirmation change would be that losing adminship wouldn't be as huge a deal either; the community would be more apt to forgive after 6 mo. or whatever, rather than treat someone like a criminal for a decade. (That said, I can think of two admins who've regained the bit who never should have because their earlier abuses weren't errors but programmatic abuse of authority, which is a personality problem not a learning-curve issue.)

No system is perfect, and "political" ones are always far from it, the more so they more they are rooted in cult-of-personality and fear-of-change psychology. I'm in favor of anything that moves adminship and other aspects of WP's internal governance more toward meritocracy and further away from popularity contest.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Failed ping notification[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to fix.

You have pinged by Zero0000 at WP:ARCA, but it failed due to a typo. You may wish to check the page. Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't try to ping Zero0000, I just mentioned the editor in passing (albeit misspelled as "Zero000"). Kind of a WP:DGAF; I have little sympathy for people who intentionally choose hard-to-remember usernames with strings of digits in them. I don't have a need for Zero0000 to respond there; while I disagreed with one of the editor's ideas, our mutual support for Callanec's "version 4" makes the matter moot, and the purpose of that page is to provide input on ARCA requests to the ArbCom members, not to engage in back-and-forth threaded conversation for its own sake.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Kostas wasn't telling you that a ping you made had failed, rather that a ping by Zero aimed at you had done so, in case you cared. Cool if you don't, but still neighbourly of Kostas to let you know... -- Begoon 09:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah! I get it. I have the page watchlisted. @Kostas20142:, I do appreciate the effort. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thank you for your recent edits to WP:RFAADVICE. When I wrote that page a few years ago, I never dreamed of the tens of thousands of hits it would get and become the default advice for RFA candidates. It's nice to know that someone is watching over it and making useful improvements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
{burp} Thankee verr mush!  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia![edit]

Pompeii - Osteria della Via di Mercurio - Dice Players.jpg Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Donkey shins! :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm OK with Dash[edit]

Resolved

As you requested, I have double-checked my edits at Dash. I do find that, while I didn't leave anything substantial out, there are a few details that I deleted; I have now restored them to the section Rendering dashes on computers.

Probably in the new year, I plan to add a hatnote to the effect that additional techniques are available using the Unicode values 2013 and 2014, refering the user to the article Unicode input. Peter Brown (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown: Thanks for looking into it. :-) I would probably care less about something like an article on the ℞ symbol or whatever, but this is basic punctuation, and oft-used by Wikipedians directly, so not losing any "how do I do this?" info was important. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

Sorry you just didn't make it. It looks like you got enough support (more than four who got in), but you had a few people opposing just because you aren't an admin. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 3 is waiting for you. I think third time will be lucky, and then either next year or the year after you'll be voted onto the Committee. Anyway, best wishes, whatever you decide. SilkTork (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And, yeah, I thought it was funny that I missed it by less than 3%. It's okay. I was looking to serve the community – to try to really make a difference at ArbCom. But, if a sufficient number of people are never going to accept an Arb candidate who's not already an admin, I have lots of other stuff I can do. I know being an Arb would have been a big time drain; it's not something I wanted for the cachet of it (is there any? Arbs get fists shaken at them a lot), but was tedious work I was signing up to take on. I'm likely to run again next year, on the same "I'm not an admin, and that's a good thing for balance" platform. Because it's true. Adminship is like a combination of security guard and janitor. Has an all access pass to the campus, and that requires a lot of trust, but not everyone wants to fill that role, and it has nothing to do with whether someone would be good on a dispute arbitrating board.

I'm also sure I got lots of downvotes because I'm the primary steward of MoS for the last several years, and heavily involved in it since at least 2008 (and in WP:N before that). In various editors' voter guides, at least two opposed me because I was involved in MoS. There are people who don't think we should have MoS or that it it should say something that better suits their preferences (usually profession-based, generational, or nationalism-driven), sometimes with a "wikipolitical" power struggle component (against centralization and broad input, in favor of localized WP:FACTION or individual-author WP:VESTED article control). Every time one of these people doesn't get their way in some trivial style dispute, I get on their long-term "dirt list".

This is why wikifriends drop by and have a hearty chuckle when someone posts on my talk page that I should run for RfA. (All the MoS drama, plus I'm not always Mr. Sweetness and Light, and I'm also wordy on talk pages.) To pass RfA, I might have to abandon MoS and most other WP:POLICY work to the winds. Probably for 5+ years, ha ha. MoS is actually getting close to feature-complete (finally!) for WP purposes, so within another couple of years, this might actually be feasible. The rest of the P&G seem pretty stable, other than a pair of related problems I've identified here.

I might consider RfA again if I had something like 4 nominators who were all active, long-term, not-too-controversial admins. And after I came up with something I want to work on a lot that requires admin tools.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, good luck on whatever you do. SilkTork (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm active enough as an admin, but give me a shout if you'd like a nomination. Fences&Windows 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Fences and windows: Thanks!  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Education vs. alma mater[edit]

Infobox person. What was the final decision on merging these duplicate parameters? --RAN (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I don't recall; it's been flushed from my FIFO buffer. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Snowflake macro (Unsplash).jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, you too! Remember: Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes![edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg
SMcCandlish, please accept these holiday wishes :)

I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.

  • Ben · Salvidrim!  03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!
Good season and luck to you as well. Despite being critical of the self-granting to your COI account some bits that require confirmation of trust level, I'm less concerned about this case than some of the other parties. I don't agree with the "prohibit from paid editing" suggestions, just paid admin actions (or admin actions in furtherance of paid editing). See also RfC at VPPOL; you're basically the test case, and there could have been a test case that was far more egregious, but you happened to be in the [right/wrong] place at the [right/wrong] time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"happened to be in the [right/wrong] place at the [right/wrong] time. -- spot on man, sounds like the title of my biography. :p Ben · Salvidrim!  19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and a new RfC at WT:ADMIN, even more of a snowball. Events are out of any individual control at this point.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No fancy template...[edit]

Mac, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for all you do. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy Western year-end holiday season! Heh. Heat: I was wandering around last night in just a denim jacket (after seeing the new Star Wars movie) and it wasn't bad. Northern Califoria's pretty warm despite Mark Twain's "The coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco" quip (which was certainly not true even for him, having lived in New York; the winters there are about as tough as in Ontario).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

accessibility guidelines headings and serial commas[edit]

You should probably look for consensus for the change. Not mandatory, but probably best. I don't see consistent use of Oxford commas on the page, and it's not at all confusing in the heading. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I already opened a talk page thread about this (showing serial comma use on that page, which you can find in a few seconds with an in-page search on the string , and). You should have opened the "D" in WP:BRD, if you're going to take the BRD route. Per WP:EDITING policy, all editors have a right to make good faith edits. "I don't agree" or "I don't understand" without an actual facts-, policy-, or source-based rationale is not a valid reason to thwart constructive edits; see WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:STONEWALL. See also WP:LAME, and find something better to do that edit-war against highly standardized use of commas, which you'll find in The Chicago Manual of Style and most other mainstream style guides, and find opposed in virtually no style guides other than those for news journalism, the primary edict of which is to shorten content as much as possible to save newsprint space. So, see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#PAPER.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Sorry, that was more testy than was warranted. I just spent an hour and half in transit, only to miss a connecting (and limited) train by less than two minutes due to a delay on a streetcar on the way to the station; cost me some work. I'm kind of biting the world's collective ankle right now. Nothing personal. I need to go watch a comedy for half an hour or something.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem. Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
As for long commutes, I hear you. Have a wonderful Christmas and a fulfilling new year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: You too! I'm in a cheerier mood already, and have decided I won't argue further on the comma thing over there. Either what I posted on the talk page is convincing (to retain it, or to use one of the alternative versions) or it's not. However, the version with the comma is linked to from at least one page, so it'll need to be tracked down if that version isn't retained.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  04:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Maureen Wroblewitz[edit]

 Declined

Help expand this article. Thank you!171.248.249.168 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is the kind of article I'm most likely to try to get deleted on WP:Notability grounds. Wikipedia doesn't need more articles on people who aren't actually important but are just having their "15 minutes of fame" because they're pretty or got on TV a couple of times. This one has a lot of sources cited, but a lot of them are trivial, passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. Even if this person is genuinely notable, I've sworn off working on "minor celebrity" bios, as a poor use of my (or anyone else's) time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  04:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings[edit]

Happy holidays, SMcCandlish! I am sorry for stealing your seat at the election; I hope we can still work together. As I am relatively inexperienced and not well versed in policies, I am hoping that I can come to you for advice from time to time (actually, there is a MoS-related case about editors in general that I would like to hear your insight). Best wishes, Alex Shih (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised things came so close, and I actually had more support votes than 50% of the successful candidates, so I don't feel bad about it. Kind of relieved, since ArbCom is reported to be a lot of work and rather thankless for the most part. What we're using right now is a strange and deeply flawed voting system, which gives a double-vote to grudge holders (they can vote for who they like, against you, and neural on everyone else, effectively a double oppose against you; meanwhile there is no double-support alternative, except the drastic step of voting for one or two candidates someone supports and against (not neutral on) everyone else. The combination of these effects is that, in any close race for the last 3–5 seats, the numbers will automatically be skewed in favor of newer editors who've collected fewer grudge bearers, even if their actual support level is lower.

Anyway, I'll be happy to help how I can.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Franz Poledne Herrenzimmer mit Kamin.jpg

Hope all's well with you and yours, and you're enjoying a relaxing weekend by your choice of heating source. Looking forward to continuing to see your good works in the coming year! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too! Here in Cali, the weather's actually pretty nice. If I had any sense, I would give up this hobby and write another book or ten, but it's hard to stay away more than a couple of months at most.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, I know what you mean. I need to get around to writing a book at some point... I've got a million ideas in my mind but always get stuck after writing 10-20k words. Guess my head's still too used to academic paper writing, lol. Any recommended reading or advice? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Not right off-hand, for writer's block (I have the opposite problem), though just searching that on Amazon and looking for four- and five-star results, from real publishers, is probably a good bet. For writing in general, one of my faves is Stephen Pinker's The Sense of Style; he's not a just a linguist and a very well-regarded nonfiction writer, he's also a cognitive scientist, so he really knows his stuff. That said, I would have preferred he did an introductory and an advanced volume back to back; TSoS is kind of a mixture, and I find the "basics" material in it a little tedious, as if it's aimed at college freshmen and retirees thinking of starting a blog about their hobby. Zero of the advice is wrong though; I've only found 3 errors in it, and the're all trivial (like an adjective mislabeled an adverb). I have a bunch of other "how to write well" books, but few of them have stuck out in my mind. There are a lot of genre/topical ones, though. I guess it depends on what you want to write.

If it's non-fiction, the key is to outline like mad. You can just start filling in stuff as it occurs to you, and it will already be quasi-organized. Fill in what's missing and massage each section to be cohesive, and the sections to flow together well. This can also help identify material that doesn't really belong and should be saved for another work. Even for short stuff this works well; I use the technique a lot when writing essays and guideline drafts and other WP-internal material. (It really shows when I don't and just do a brain dump, as I did at WP:SSF; at least 50% of that needs to be cut out.) I recently started How to Write Short by Roy Peter Clark (it's focused on tweets, headlines, blog copy, etc, but I figure it will also help me reign in my prolixity habit when it comes to talk page posting, which has always been more conversational to me than anything; the fact that SSF originated in copy-pasted talk page material is why it is the text-wall wreck that it is, even if the reasoning underlying it has proven essentially irrefutable).
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This is all very helpful. I appreciate it! One of the long-shelved projects I think I'm going to seriously push on this coming year is a legal treatise. So that ought to be fun. Good luck if you decide to work on a book yourself! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da[edit]

  Claude Monet - The Magpie - Google Art Project.jpg Compliments of the season
Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment 
 Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 19:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Rwy'n gobeithio y byddwch yn cael tymor gwyliau da, hefyd. [If that really says "My hovercraft is full of eels", blame the machine translator!].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meghan Markle[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Markle. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Anchor placement again[edit]

The examples in the documentation for Template:Anchor still have the anchors placed inside the section heading. I think this needs to be sorted out once and for all. A New Year task? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:Seems worth doing. There was disagreement about this stuff only last week at WT:MOS. In my draft User:SMcCandlish/Manual of Style/Internal supplement essay, I've laid out the nature of the dispute, in the "Links and anchors" section.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the "Links and anchors" section which is excellent. The right solution, it seems to me, is for this to be fixed in the MediaWiki software, so there's a standard way of doing linking to the heading that produces sensible HTML and generates 'plain' edit summaries. Whether this would be worth pursuing is another issue. Perhaps it would give some leverage if it could be shown that some of the methods you've laid out, which are actually used by editors, confuse screen readers. However, the key step for me at present is to get text like yours (slightly amended here) into the MoS: The overwhelmingly most common practice in mainspace is to include anchors below headings, not inside them, to avoid confusing new editors with mangled edit summaries. Prefer below the heading by default, as least likely to be problematic, but do not editwar over different placements. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Could compress it even more for real MoS usage: In mainspace, include anchors below headings, not inside them, to avoid confusing new editors with mangled edit summaries.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Code-example markup tricks[edit]

New year greetings. Putting my stupidity hat on- giving clear examples of false code seems weird. Looking at the third example in placement in tables, there is no visual distinction between this and the correct code in the other examples. I am not an expert on the MOS conventions for displaying false code, but use of colour (displaying the illicit code in red) or putting the whole lot in the second column of a two column table- and 'Don't go here' icon in the first, would signal the difference. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Yes, we have templates for that, e.g. {{!mxt}} and {{dcr}}. Which one works better depends on the surrounding markup. If the page is already using {{xt}}-family templates to mark up examples, I use {{!mxt}}, but an isolated case might better with {{dcr}}, especially if the code in question is outright invalid or malfunctional (that template uses re-styled <del>...</del> markup).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that- it will be copied over to my user/sandwardrobe. In the Tenplate:anchor/doc under discussion- the offending code appears to be:

the following forms of cell are not valid:<source enclose=div lang=text>!{{anchor|Foo1}} |A header cell !style="background:white;" {{anchor|Foo2}} |A header cell with styling |{{anchor|Foo3}} |A data cell |rowspan=2 {{anchor|Foo4}} |A data cell spanning two rows</source>

So is there a magic way in Template:/doc space of turning the text color=red, in a way that is not overwritten? It has beaten me today. I can see multiple uses if we had a simple negative template for false code blocks. ClemRutter (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: I don't use <source> or <syntaxhighlight> much, specifically because they interfere with tweaking the displayed output – they're a rather blunt instrument. I guess I need to be sure what your intent is. My usual approach to this sort of thing is to use <code style="padding-left:0;">...</code>. This gets rid of the annoying rightward indentation at the start of the code material, and then one can just use <br /> to create line breaks within the code block (turning off nowiki as needed to make that happen, and to make templates like {{!mxt}} or {{dcr}} work within the code example). Regardless what approach you use, the main thing to remember is CSS cascading order; if you do something like {{!mxt|<code>Bad example</code>}}, the result will look the same as <code>Bad example</code> because the stylesheet stuff for the code element comes after that for the {{!mxt}} template. Same goes for links; if you want to something like {{xt|Example text [[War of 1812]]}} you end up with link coloration marring the green example: Example text War of 1812. This actually has to be done as {{xt|Example text}} [[War of 1812|{{xt|War of 1812}}]]: Example text War of 1812. Various MoS pages have errors of this sort in them; I've been fixing them as I run across them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions/2013–2015 review[edit]

Specifically, regarding the "Ds/alerts" problems you highlighted. Would it lessen the "threat" aspect if the alerts were issued by a bot? What I was thinking is that if an article is tagged (say by edit notice) as under discretionary sanctions, that if an editor makes a substantive edit (let's say a non-minor one) to it the bot informs them of the presence of sanctions if they are otherwise eligible for such notification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That would help a lot, though someone from WP:Teahouse or whatever needs to also re-design the template to look less like a "go F yourself" message. >;-) I have actually been proposing a solution like this since ca. 2015, so if others take up the bot idea, maybe it will finally grow legs. It would also prevent system-gaming of the kind of outlined many times (disrupt in one area until "notified", go to another one and do it there, etc., then come back a year later, after notice expiry, and start over again at the original topic).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Now we would need to get it proposed somewhere where AE active admins and arbitrators see it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Could try WT:ARBCOM, but this might actually require a formal WP:ARCA.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll see if @Callanecc: knows where to ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest probably taking two steps, the first by proposing it at WT:AE for AE regulars to review and then at WP:ARCA for the committee to review. I suggest WT:AE first as I think it's reasonably likely that the committee will want to hear from them before making a decision. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I'll let Jo-Jo continue to take the lead on this. I've had F-all luck getting any traction of any kind on DS reform for something like 4 years now. I know when to take a back seat.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to collapse top template[edit]

Resolved: Fixed.

SMcCandlish, the collapsible (and collapsed) instructions on the Template:Did you know/Queue page between the queues and the preps is suddenly no longer collapsing, nor even offering the option to collapse/show. When I took a look to see what might be causing it, the only thing that caught my eye was this edit by you. Can you please check to see whether your change has broken the "collapse top" template, and if so, please fix things? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Repaired. I'd forgotten the closing }}} when adding a parameter alias. Derp.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Mots justes[edit]

On the MOS talk page you recently wrote: "(our articles are palimpsests stirred together by a global assortment of geniuses, crackpots, and everyone in between, sometimes citing great stuff, sometimes poor stuff, and sometimes nothing)". This, my friend, is a gem. If there's a Hall of Fame for WP user quotes, this should be on it. Whatever you had for dinner the night you wrote that, have it more often.  White Whirlwind  咨  10:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Guess I'd better stock up on chicken covered in extra-spicy barbecue sauce then. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Somebody here remembers Vera Lynn[edit]

Note to self: Vera Lynn is badass. Over 100 now, and still gets albums in the charts.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.5 -2017[edit]

Newsletter Nr 5, 2017-12-30, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the fifth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

A demo wiki is up and running!

Dear members of WikiProject Genealogy, this will be the last newsletter for 2017, but maybe the most important one!

You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records.

And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2018!


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

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

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

New Years new page backlog drive[edit]

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trace Adkins[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trace Adkins. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Thanks, you too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SMcCandlish![edit]

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


Hope you had a wonderful new year. :)

Category titles advice sought[edit]

Hi, I'd like to pick your brains on an issue concerning category titles. I'm working on the flora distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Some more categories need to be created. The titling practice that seems to have been followed, mostly but not entirely consistently, is that in "Category:Flora of X", other than an extra "the", "X" is chosen so that it is the title of the article that best matches the WGSRPD unit. This means that if "X" needs to be disambiguated, then a disambiguating term is used in "Category:Flora of X", even though it wouldn't be needed for the category alone. Thus Category:Flora of New York (state) even though there isn't a flora distribution category for the city; Category:Flora of Chihuahua (state) to match Chihuahua (state); etc. There will need to be a category for the Brazilian state of Amazonas, whose article is at Amazonas (Brazilian state). To me "Category:Flora of Amazonas (Brazilian state)" seems clumsy (the WGSRPD just calls it "Amazonas"). On the other hand, I can see the logic of this approach. You think about titles more than I do, so I'd value your opinion on how it fits with usual title and disambiguation practices. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I would make it match the article name even if it's clumsy, because failure to match the article name is grounds for speedy category renaming (WP:CFD#C2D). With the short name, the ambiguity would still be there for the reader (who might think Category:Flora of New York meant the city). Disambiguation generally "adheres" to the topic; it's not done differently in different namespaces. Clumsiness of cat. names is way less of an issue than with article titles, since readers are generally not typing category names or picking them from a disambiguation page, but just noticing them at bottoms of articles and then clicking around in them as a navigation system.

PS: An exception to article-title-matching is that if the category could not imaginably pertain to anything but one topic, then it need not be disambiguated. Amazonas is a bunch of places, so organisms being in them could obviously apply. If there were only one place called Amazonas, but the big company were Amazonas.com instead of Amazon.com, and we had Amazonas (Brazilian state) and Amazonas (company) (only), then Category:Flora of Amazonas would be likely fine, because the concept "Flora of" couldn't logically pertain to the company. I can't think of any actual place names, right off hand, where this would come up. Even the ones I'm straining to think of (e.g. Clovis, California versus King Clovis, are already disambiguated for other reasons, or the place is actually the primary topic anyway and not disambiguated. It's more likely to come up in a case like "Category:Songs by Foo", where the article is at "Foo (singer)" and none of the other Foos have anything to do with music. And this exception isn't even consistently applied; lots of categories have disambiguation even when one might not think it strictly necessary, probably because it's easier to just copy the article name than to analyze whether the disambiguation is really needed on a cat.-by-cat. basis.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  02:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful advice; the reference to WP:CFD#C2D is particularly helpful if anyone queries using a disambiguated name.
More problematic to me is when this approach is "over applied", as I see it. Thus we have Category:Flora of North America and Category:Flora of South America when the WGSRPD defines these (as Northern America and Southern America) differently to what would be expected given the category titles used (it puts Central America and the Caribbean in Southern America). Peter coxhead (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
One of the other things I've noticed, which I know you've been involved in discussions about before, is the inconsistent use of diacritics in article titles. Why Réunion for example, but not Québec? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ah! I would definitely run two parallel categories. We need categories for these "official" designations that stick to exactly how the source defines them, using their "northern America" and "southern America" terms of art no one else uses; and we also need categories that match actual reader expectations. I've done a lot of [but insufficient] work on the latter set of categories, and it was the Caribbean problem that inspired it. I've been cross-linking categories as needed and putting inclusion criteria at the top of them, and so on.

I started with Category:Mammals of North America, Category:Felids of South America, and Category:Felids of Central America, and worked up to Category:Mammals of South America, Category:Mammals of Central America, Category:Mammals of North America, but did not complete the inclusion hatnotes, and didn't finish the cross-categorized Category:Mammals of the Caribbean (it should include any Caribbean place sometimes classified as S. or C. Am., but I don't think it has them all yet). I got side-tracked by other stuff and never did finish all that, and I did not drill upward to non-mammals much less to plants, nor sideways into canids or simians or whatever – huge job, better done with AWB or something). The goal was to match our life-forms in the Americas categories to how we're categorizing actual countries (and adjust even that as necessary to be inclusive of conflicting definitions).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, animal distributions are categorized differently. As per Category:Fauna by continent, the traditional North and South America are used, and Oceania is employed, I suppose for Australasia and the Pacific, but since there's no single external source for the system used, it gets applied inconsistently. By contrast, for plants we have a single well-used source, and a set of clear maps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. So the problems for animals and plants are a bit different. For both we have a small set of the usual suspects (no names here) who love to create extra categories, mostly unnecessary and almost always never worked through to completion or consistency. However, at least for plants we have a standard that can be returned to, if and when anyone has the time and energy to do it.
I will try again to see if there could now be agreement on "Flora of northern America" and "Flora of southern America". WT:PLANTS seems the place to open a discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is to have a separate set of categories, such that we have "normal people" categories for SAm, CAm, NAm, Caribbean (and there'll be some overlap, with various Caribbean ones as illustrated on the felids and mammals categories, plus Mexico being classified in both NAm and CAm, due to varying definitions). Then also have WGSRPD categories – northern and southern – for people that need to look at this stuff through that lens.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I've looked for the past discussion(s) in the archives, but haven't found them yet. My recollection is that it was agreed that having two categories like "Flora of northern America" (WGSRPD) and "Flora of North America" (usual sense) wouldn't work. Suppose we treated the new "Category:Flora of North America" as a container category for the relevant Level 2 and Level 3 components of the WGSRPD, i.e.
Where would we then put the hundreds of articles about plants presently directly in the current Category:Flora of North America? They would have to have both [[Category:Flora of northern America]] and [[Category:Flora of North America]] added to each article, which would confuse the hell out of readers and most editors. The same would apply to southern/South America. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe disambiguate as "Category:Flora of northern America (WGSRPD)" or "Category:WGSRPD northern America flora"? The problem with any WGSRPD category is all these more specific categories like "Flora of the Caribbean" and "Flora of Western Canada" lend themselves to categorization in our usual geographical categories, so it'll eventually happen whether they're also in WGSRPD categories for "northern America" and "southern America" or not, if for no other reason than to prevent confusing gaps in the category tree. What we have here is a conflict between how WP geographically categorizes and how some other entity does so; if we want to include categories for their unusual designations they'll surely have to be add-ons. Not because anyone will make a rule about it but because they'll be edited around in the normal course of doing things. It's at least happy that many of their more specific categories coincide with ones we'd use anyway (aside from some abbreviations). Not so much the broad US and Canadian regional subdivisions; we don't organize any US or Canadian categories by "Western" or "Southeastern", so some of these will need to be non-diffusing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
We have to use the WGSRPD categories as the primary ones in many if not most instances, because these are what reliable secondary sources use, including the IUCN, GRIN, and the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP), plus more specialized sources that rely on these. So it's the non-WGSRPD categories that generally have to be "add-ons" for plants. So, no, it won't "eventually happen". If the source has code "7" or "northern America" it's only possible to categorize accurately if there's a category for this.
The other problem with non-WGSRPD categories is the lack of clear definitions. Thus above I used a definition of "North America" that excludes Greenland, placing it in a separate "Arctic" category, as I found in some sources. If you include Greenland in "North America" then it's more-or-less equivalent to the WGSRPD's Northern America + Central America. "Central America" without a clear map like the WGSRPD's is a problem, because the northern boundary varies by source. "Oceania" is a real problem. Editors classifying animal distributions have fudged the issue badly. The map at Category:Fauna by continent treats it as a separate 'continent' to Asia. In the article Oceania, it includes the island of New Guinea. However although Category:Fauna of New Guinea is placed in the Fauna of Oceania, it is also ultimately placed (via Indonesia) in the Fauna of Asia, yet these are supposed to be different continents.
The treatment of New Guinea is probably an illustration of a wider problem. Whatever scheme is being used, editors come across an area A that comprises part of area B and part of area C. Since categorization is hierarchical, the only valid approach is to put A into the category for the area that completely includes B and C. But this isn't what usually happens. Either A is put into B and C (wrong because A is not a sub-area of either) or B and C are both placed in A (wrong because neither B nor C are sub-areas of A). Category:Flora of the Rocky Mountains is a good example, where I've just recently removed Category:Flora of Western Canada and Category:Flora of the Western United States.
(An alternative is to accept that categorization in the English Wikipedia is not hierarchical, and that placing category X in category Y means something vaguer. The problem then is that there's usually no good reason to put X into Y rather than vice versa, e.g. as the Rocky Mountains run across Western Canada and the Western United States, the latter categories could reasonably be put into the former.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other a little bit. I have no issue at all with the idea that categorization along WGSRPD lines is what botanists will do, and do it quite strictly by WGSRPD-related RS definitions (aside from us expanding some abbreviations for clarity). But it's pretty much inevitable that they'll also be categorized in a more loosey-goosey way (if not plant articles themselves, then the small-region fauna categories they're in) along the usual "commonly understood meaning of [insert geographical area here]" lines, just through everyday editorial activities by people who don't care at all about botany but who care a whole lot about the Caribbean or where ever – the way everything else on WP gets categorized. E.g., you'll find various countries categorized as being both Eastern and Central European, and so on. Our category tree isn't really a tree but more like neutral network, with a lot of cross-linking and what some would call redundancy. It's okay that way. The solution is to make sure that the WGSRPD categories are clearly IDed as such, if not in their names then in inclusion criteria at the top of the category.

Mostly I don't think there'll be a problem. As an example, a plant might get put into Category:Flora of Trinidad at Tobago when that exists at some point. I assume this would be WGSRPDed as a subcat of Category:Flora of southern America. But "southern America" isn't a thing to anyone but WGSRPD. Other Category:Foo of Trinidad and Tobago categories are in Category:Foo of the Caribbean and Category:Foo of South America (because how to geographically define T&T varies by context). So, it's pretty much inevitable that Category:Flora of Trinidad and Tobago will be a child cat. of all three of Category:Flora of southern America, Category:Flora of South America, and Category:Flora of the Caribbean, and these categories will serve different purposes for different reader communities; the latter two will just be based on how T&T is categories from (respectively) a geophysical landmass perspective versus a socio-politico-cultural one, and it won't have a thing to do with the plants. Meanwhile, the WGSRPD cat. will be entirely based on botanical sources, and we wouldn't even have "southern America" categories for any other reason (similarly, we have "Latin America" categories for certain internationally cross-cultural things, but we don't use them outside that sphere (there'll never be a Category:Flora of Latin America, nor a Category:Volcanoes of Latin America, because it just doesn't compute; flowers and lava aren't Latino).

So, it's not an either-or choice. People who want to know what plants live in Mexico as a geographical-range matter may be thinking either "Central America" or "North America" (we won't know), those from an environmental regulation perspective probably from a "Central American" perspective (.mx law has more in common with that of the rest of "northern Latin America", as it were, than of the US and Canada), while botanists will be thinking strictly in terms of WGSRPD's "northern America" (now – I note that .mx used to be cut in half in the WGSRPD scheme).Everyone will get to be happy, at least in theory. Or from a different angle: Look at how Turkey is categorized. Someone could consider it confusing, but the purpose of the categories isn't a hierarchical and exclusive labeling system, but a navigation tool to related articles, and Turkey is Balkan, SE European, E Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Near Eastern, etc., all at once depending on perspective.

Hope that helps. I'm sure you and the rest of the botanists will get the WGSRPD stuff done right (even if it takes some policing – you might find someone insisting that Flora of Delaware has to be in Flora of the Northeastern United States because so-and-so sources (economic, geological, etc.) catalogue DE as part of the US Northeast, not understanding that it's a WGSRPD label, not a general geographical one. A potential solution to that if it ever became a real problem would be using category names like "WGSRPD flora of the Northeastern United States" or something, if having category inclusion criteria doesn't cut it. But it should be enough.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we agree that some more "user friendly" categories are also needed. Some of these can be made compatible with the WGSRPD ones, by being super- or sub-sets, but others can't, and just exist in parallel. I have no problem with that. The problem arises when, as has happened in the past, discussions have resulted in category names that correspond to the "user friendly" categories but are supposed to be used for the WGSRPD ones. That's the case, as we seem to agree, for Category:Flora of North America for example, which, when I've finished my current tidying, I'll try again to get changed, with this name used for the usual sense, and Category:Flora of northern America used for the WGSRPD sense.
The general principle I'd like to see established is that the WGSRPD category is only called by the "common name" when the "common name" has the same meaning or a meaning so close that it doesn't matter.
We also agree that it's important to make clear what is a WGSRPD category and what isn't; I've working on this by adding {{WGSRPD code}} to every such category – the template also creates a tracking category by level, e.g. Category:Flora categories with a level 3 WGSRPD code, which will help in maintenance.
Jingoism applies here, too, since many editors want "their" country/state/district/stomping ground/whatever to have its own distribution category, regardless of whether this makes sense.
By the way, categories aren't supposed to form a general net, as per your comment above, but rather a set of cross-connected trees, as per Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization. In the current context, the WGSRPD categories will form a strict tree, with cross-connections to what should be other trees based on more common usage. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd be in support of that. Let me know if it comes up in CfD again. (to be explicit: I'm declaring an interest in working on that being consistent, not asking to be canvassed). Also don't disagree with your net/tree assessment; I was over-generalizing. We do have a lot of strict trees for particular purposes, and more loose arrangements; some are diffusing some are not. Together they form kind of an interlacing mangrove, which is less of a bramble than it looks at first glance when you examine it in detail. I think I first encountered this (and debates about it, which mostly seem to have settled out) when working on the Category:Cue sports stuff. There was strong, even strident, desire to categorize snooker as a sport unto itself, yet it also obviously needed to be classified as a cue sport like pool and carom billiards. Consequently, lots of sports categories have separate entries for cue sports and for snooker, but not for pool or carom (which don't have their own international sport fandom and marketing machines of any note, while snooker is on par with cricket in that regard in many parts of the world). We similarly have categories like Category:Ball games under Category:Sports by type (and Category:Games by type) that include cricket and cue sports and yadda yadda, but it's not a strict tree into which all the sports-that-have-a-ball-in-them get forced (e.g. Category:Sports in the United States has no Category:Sports in the United Staes by type and thus not Category:Ball games in the United States; it's been flattened to Category:Sports in the United States by sport.

I think this sort of thing is good precedent for what's under discussion here. As long as there's some category thicket for "Flora of [geographical name]" that suits the general-interest approach to that, there is no rationale to blockade or merge parallel specialized trees, like one for WGSRPD, that do something similar along different lines, even if there's conceptual overlap or a name similarity. It would even be possible to skip the "call the WGSRPD category by the 'common name' when the 'common name' has the same meaning or a meaning so close that it doesn't matter" part in theory, though it might be necessary to have WGSRPD in the names. Something like this is alrady used for conservation status; I see that Category:Biota by conservation status system exists, but it doesn't seem very fleshed out yet for anything but IUCN. But we do have Category:IUCN Red List critically endangered species (and, I note with relief it's not "Critically Endangered", LOL). If this sort of thing is defensible for IUCN, then it's defensible for WGSRPD.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Diacritics[edit]

Diacritics: Basically, it's because there are a lot of jingoistic asshats, and they sometimes form a big enough WP:FACTION to wear down everyone in a war of attrition until they get the censorship they want. They actually keep getting shut down, e.g. in an ArbCom case, and getting their "wikiproject" (read: canvassing farm) deleted, and so on, but they never really go away. They used to be hard-core centralized in a few other projects like WikiProject Tennis and WikiProject Ice Hockey, but RM has largely undone their attempts to WP:OWN those categories as no-diacritics zones. I expect that Québec will gets its proper spelling eventually, especially given MOS:ENGVAR (whether 'Mercans (or Brits or Strines for that matter) like to include the diacritic is irrelevant, it's frequently retained in Canadian English, so no defensible argument can be made that it's "not English"). PS: I fixed the missing King Clovis redirect. How was that a redlink? Sheesh.

Sadly jingoism isn't confined to diacritics, either here or in the real world! We appear to live in an increasingly nationalistic age, to my discomfort as an aging liberal internationalist. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Bet yer a Zionist commie, too! >;-) [FBDB] — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
That [FBDB] comes in handy, don't it? EEng 05:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, though it shouldn't be necessary. It's symptomatic of the administration problem we have. I used the template at WP:ARCA recently.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

William, Prince of Wales listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Moot: Speedily deleted.
Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect William, Prince of Wales. Since you had some involvement with the William, Prince of Wales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevéselbert 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent RFC on telenovela[edit]

 Done

What's your opinion on the close at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC: Telenovela disambiguation? A pretty poor close in my book. I'm already having problems with it - see Talk:Victoria (TV series)#Requested move 5 January 2018 (withdrawn), [14], and [15]. Have tried taking it up with the closing editor here: User talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Half finished RFC close. Would be interested in your take on all this. --woodensuperman 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: Dropped off a note at Godric's page. While I don't dispute the underlying fact of the close (that the discussion failed to come to a clear consensus), it's clearly a mis-worded close that implies that a discussion that didn't even come to consensus can, through some form of black magic, literally override long-standing guidelines, and this is leading to RM disruption. In the interim, I would suggest re-opening a new RfC at WP:VPPOL, with the explicit reason that the discussion at RM, despite being fairly thorough discussed among a number of topically interested editors, failed to come to consensus, and the closer specifically directed that a broader discussion would be needed to resolve the matter. (That's how you avoid bogus complaints of tendentious rehash of a recently closed discussion). I personally don't care much whether we use "(telenovella)" as a disambiguator, though I lean against it per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:OVERDAB. However, I care a tremendous amount about undermining of WP:P&G by wrong-headed misapplication of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to try to do something that it cannot.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Let's see what Godric does now. Exactly, how can a failed RFC result in the outcome that the RFC failed to establish? --woodensuperman 16:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so Godric got a second opinion and is refusing to change the close. Is it worth pursuing further do you think? --woodensuperman 12:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Woodensuperman: Yes. What I suggested at "In the interim, ..." is probably the way to go. WBoG's poorly worded close is going to be taken as blanket license to use "telenovela" everywhere, despite actual failure of consensus to reach that conclusion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator?. I hope you don't mind but I recycled some of your wording above. --woodensuperman 09:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, this RfC is pretty conclusive. Do you think it's premature to close it? I guess we should add something to WP:NCTV - something along the lines of "Do not disambiguate by genre or format, i.e. "sitcom", "telenovela", "soap opera", etc., unless multiple articles for TV series from the same year and region exist and further disambiguation is required." Any thoughts? --woodensuperman 12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: That sounds like reasonable wording, though maybe also see what the book and other guidelines say. I would link to WP:PRECISE in it (the policy from which we derive the "do not over-disambiguate" principle). As for RfCs, I like to let them run the full course. Most requests to close RfCs early at WP:AN/RFC are actually ignored, and patience is a virtue, and there is no deadline, and don't give anyone a wedge to drive ("the RfC was closed too soon, so it's not really valid", blah blah).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Maybe I'll wait a bit then, although the conversation seems to have fizzled out, and the consensus there seems unanimous. But in light of the recent reverts after the previous RfC, I can think of at least one editor who may resist if we don't wait for the 30 days... --woodensuperman 14:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at WP:NCFILM and WP:NCBOOKS neither sanction genre at all. I guess as it should really only be used when all other options are exhausted, a situation which would be very rare. Is it worth mentioning it at WP:NCTV, or would this just cause more confusion? --woodensuperman 14:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I would mention it to prevent a recurrence. I'm surprised it's not mentioned at the the other pages, though we tolerate a wee bit of this stuff in books, e.g. "(novel)" and "(book)" when "(book)" would almost always suffice.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant whether it was worth including the clause that begins "unless...". I wouldn't really draw a parallel between this situation and the book situation. I'd view "book" as the format, just a vessel for the type of work. --woodensuperman 15:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the "unless" clause is useful; there will be times when the condition happens and we shouldn't leave people not know how to further disambiguate when and only when it does.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ< 

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, I've made the change to the guideline, using elements of my wording and the other suggestion. It may still need a tweak - feel free to improve if you have any thoughts... --woodensuperman 11:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I poked at it a little, after others already had.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SMcCandlish. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.
Message added by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at 09:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suppressing glossary term links[edit]

I'm converting a glossary to templates and was wondering if you knew a way to suppress the anchor links made by {{term}}? The glossary has 370 terms but about 50 of them are alternate names. I'd like those alternate names to have anchor links at the main term where the definition is, so the reader won't have to jump up and down in the glossary. Do you know if this is possible or if there's a workaround to achieve this? Would appreciate any advice. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: If I understand this correctly, you want to have something like (if I may template the crap out of this, for cross-references and hatnotes):
{{term|foo|noid=yes}}
{{defn|1={{crossref|selfref=no|See {{gli|phu}}.}}}}
...
{{term|phu|content={{anchor|foo}}phu}}
{{defn|1={{ghat|Also ''foo''.}} Definition here.}}
Where noid is a presently non-existent parameter for anchor ID suppression? I.e., such that the anchor for foo goes to the phu entry?  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Test block of existing code options:

Pure templates Templates and HTML Templates and wikimarkup
foo
See phu.
phu

Also foo.

Definition here.
foo2
See phu2.
phu2

Also foo2.

Definition here.
foo3
See phu3.
phu3

Also foo3.

Definition here.
FAIL: duplicate IDs. WORKS: IDs both
only in phu entry.
FAIL: indented term
(the ; causes
generation of <dl>
even though one's
already there).

 — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So, looks like the middle option works, using <dt>...</dt> instead of {{Term}}, for the foo entry. I could also hack the {{Term}} template to have an option for suppressing the ID. However, I don't really see the point of this. Why not just link directly to the phu entry? I don't know what {{Glossary link}} custom template you are or will be using (i.e., your equivalent of {{Cuegloss}}). Supposing it were {{Quuxgloss}}, you could just do: {{quuxgloss|phu|foo}}.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Not doing it the {{quuxgloss|phu|foo}} way will also produce incorrect hover text; when you mouse over it, the tooltip will say "See entry at Glossary of quux terms § foo" but will actually take you to the phu entry which may be confusing to readers even with {{ghat|Also ''foo''.}} as a hatnote in the phu entry.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you went above and beyond the call with all the templated examples! (I'm saving a copy on my talk page for future reference.) I see what you mean, that it's really not a problem with piped incoming links. I think I just wanted to keep the page as functionally equivalent to the non-templated version as possible so as not to upset anyone with the changes. Much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No prob. I know this particular code better than anyone, so it's pretty "brain dump" on my part.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sunk investment[edit]

You and I (you more than I) have put a lot of effort in to several discussions at T:MOS which have stalled. I'd hate to see that all go to waste. I suggest we try to resolve them one at a time. May I suggest we start with refs inside vs. outside parens? That one seems easiest least hard. EEng 20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A bunch of stuff has gotten archived, too, but had traction. I'll be happy to start with which ever you like.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I do what I can to push for some WP:AE and WP:AC/DS reform, but it's very, very slow-going.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

tl:Distinguish pointing to Wiktionary term[edit]

Hello Stanton- Saw your contributions to Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects and thought you might be able to help me with what I thought would be a simple thing: At the top of Nave, I went to change the target of the Distinguish template from a wikilink on Rogue (vagrant) to a Wiktionary link on knave, with nothing but knave displayed. (The wiki article Knave is a disambig page). Nothing I do will work. {{Distinguish|[[wikt:knave]]}}}}, {{Distinguish|[[:wikt:knave]]}}, {{Distinguish|{{Wiktionary|knave}}}} all generate various messes. Can you tell me what I'm missing, besides perhaps a functioning intellect? Thanks in advance. Eric talk 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eric: The proper hatnote is {{distinguish|knave}} We should use that because we do have a disambiguation page; this is why the default output of so many hatnotes is to link to disambiguation pages with the same base pagename. In another context: I don't think what you want to do can be done with that template; its code is too "tied down". If we had no DAB page, and the term on WP redirected to an article with a radically different title, you could do something like {{distinguish2|knave; see [[Rogue (vagrant)]]}} If we had no appropriate WP article at all, the thing to do would probably be {{Distinguish2|knave}}  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks very much for the prompt reply! So it's Distinguish2 that would achieve what I wanted, but policy would not have us do that. Thanks for your edit there as well. Eric talk 17:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Eric: {{distinguish|wikt:knave}} -> will provide you a link also (and might be preferable), though I generally support SMC's "link to our article/disambiguation first". --Izno (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't do {{distinguish|wikt:knave}}, because "wikt:knave" doesn't mean anything to our readers, only to editors.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't particularly disagree (hence the "might be preferable"). There's also {{See Wiktionary}} which I just remembered. --Izno (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor closing move discussion that they contributed to.[edit]

Hello, sorry to pester you again. I've just spotted that the user that closed the discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017 actually !voted in the discussion. That isn't right, is it? Not sure where to take this, although not sure there's a lot of point, as sadly I don't think the consensus is in favour of the move (even though the current title goes against WP:INCDAB). --woodensuperman 15:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman:. It's generally a bad idea, unless the consensus is very clear (i.e. a WP:SNOWBALL in one direction, or a hopeless "no consensus"). If someone does an obviously bad close of a discussion they're involved in, one can take it to WP:ANI, though I've also seen WP:AN used, and a request for re-closure at WP:AN/RFC, though the latter isn't likely to be acted upon. One can also just revert a bad closure, post a request for proper closure at AN/RFC, and re-revert it with a note that a non-involved closure has been requested at AN/RFC if someone un-reverts. The "nuclear" option to open a new RfC at WP:VPPOL, on the basis that the original discussion was improperly closed by an involved party and the question needs broader input. In this case, I wouldn't do any of these things, because the close actually seems reasonable. We do permit exception to guidelines when there's a consensus to do so. And it was a SNOWBALL. And a new RM is already open anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  17:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:EGG[edit]

 Done

Hi, I notice you do a lot of work in this area and you have always been kind enough to offer thoughtful analysis at the snooker project so I was wondering what your views were on the interpretation of WP:EGG in the context of aliases at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Query between myself and Erik. I was pretty sure I was right, but after reading the guideline again I am doubting my own interpretation. The guideline itself invokes the "principle of least astonishment" (which implies we should avoid linking through aliases), but if somebody has an obscure alias or a film has an obscure alternative title where should it link to, if anywhere? I am not particularly bothered about the "crediting" issue which triggered the discussion, but rather the deployment of aliases as redirects. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I commented over there. When it comes to works with alternative titles, it might be an EGG issue, but probably only if the alt. title has no reason to be used in the context. There could be one. E.g. one might write "George Lucas first showed his draft The Star Wars treatment to United Artists in 1973."  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James D. Zirin[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Request[edit]

 Done

Please could you have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Guideline change proposal. The discussion seems to me to be so muddled that I can't tell what is being proposed. Your understanding of these issues will be helpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I got the gist of it and ended up having to oppose, as conflicting with at least two of the WP:CRITERIA. (If I'm somehow wrong, then it really is too muddled and should be re-proposed with a clearer rationale that pre-figures concision and precision objections – it's one of those WP:Policy writing is hard matters).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Changes to user-style documentation[edit]

Regarding these changes, please also note the existence of the nearly identical m:Help:User style. - dcljr (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, not everything that we might put in our version will apply to all wikis or to Meta in particular, and Meta isn't subject to our style guide (technically, non-articles here aren't either, but we tend to apply it to project pages for consistency and to be exemplary – we can't expect new editors to follow rules we won't follow ourselves). That said, I may look them over and see about making the pages more consistent with each other. I don't edit at Meta very much, and am not sure how touchy people are about old pages like that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about MOS-type stuff, guidelines, or "rules" (i.e., editing style); it's about UI things (CSS) that individual user's can customize for themselves (alone). Code placed in a user's "global.css" (at Meta) will affect their experience at all Wikimedia wikis (to the extent possible). - dcljr (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
True enough.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User signature lint notices[edit]

I noticed that you posted messages at User talk:Pzoxicuvybtnrm and User talk:Nimbus227 asking these users to update their signatures to avoid obsolete HTML tags. Great! Please be aware, however, that User:Nihlus prepared 3 lists of users with signature issues (with <tt> tags, images, and <font> tags) and I am systematically working through User:Nihlus/linter_sigs, tracking compliance and reminding users who continue to edit and ignore my messages. I am more than 80% done and hope to finish soon. Thank you for your support for ending the propagation of lint in Wikipedia! —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Is this to say that I don't need to continue with this? I was working up a template for this in a sandbox, but will leave off if you and Nihlus already have this covered.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing them in order of most-to-fewest pages edited, and as I go down the list, I update a spreadsheet on my computer, go to the user's talk page, copy my template, go to an editing page of Nihlus's list, copy their old signature, paste it into my message, create an HTML5-compliant signature, make sure it matches, test it in Preferences if there's any suspicion it might be over 255 characters or be defective in some way, and save the page. I don't bother to check if the user spontaneously fixed their signature or if anyone else has already suggested that they do so. This is correct 99+% of the time. But if we collaborate, then it takes longer because I have to verify that nobody else has already notified the user. Even if we divide the list in some way, I still want to track compliance, and that's easiest if I'm the only one doing the notifying. So, thanks for your support, but if you want to support the effort, what would be the most helpful would be if I provide you the IDs of non-cooperative users. Perhaps if they hear from another Wikipedian such as you, sharing in your own words the message of de-linting signatures, they'll listen. Interested? —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Might be more effective, then, for me to later hit up those who did not make the change, after X number of months. Would just need a list or to be pointed at one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  04:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I completed Nihlus' first set, except for about 16 that increase the size of their signature, and I'm waiting for consensus at WT:Signatures#Signature size guidelines before I communicate with those; meanwhile Nihlus generated another set around 2018-01-18 and I'm about half done with those. Of the first set, over 60% have complied; most of the rest haven't edited anything that left a new user signature since I requested, and of the two sets combined, there are 6 refusals so far. In case you are interested in communicating with users who refused to cooperate, I've prepared a list. I've intentionally linked to Talk not User pages. I encourage you not to follow up with any you don't feel comfortable with, and if you're not comfortable with any of them — or if you just don't want to do this at all, or right now — I sympathize.

User Edits Request Refuse Narrative
Ched 22628 2017-12-07 2018-01-28 User didn't reply; 2017-12-30 user del/archived; 2018-01-28 I re-rq and user replaced my request with "I saw your note the first time - now go away and leave me alone. If my sig. is such a problem - then go get an admin. to block this account - because I'm not changing my signature just to satisfy you."
Cs-wolves 182211 2017-11-28 2017-11-28 User undid rq with summary "wipe"; 2018-01-24 re-rq and user undid with summary "Low priority error per linked page, so will await it becoming mandatory (although it appears to have grown from 8m to 15m from last time)..."; 2017-11-28 re-rq with more explanation and user undid rq with summary "Regardless, it's still low priority and until it becomes otherwise, it will be treated as low priority. Archiving, and not 'deleting' (so the code will be there for me to go back to, to not require any further contact)."
Lugnuts 703631 2017-11-26 2017-11-27 2017-11-27 user said "Seeing as there are more than 8 million of these on WP, I wont bother changing mine." 2018-01-01 archived; 2018-01-28 re-rq and user undid.
Maxim 33925 2017-12-6 2018-01-28 2018-01-13 archived; 2018-01-28 re-rq and user undid with summary "I'm not interested, please leave me alone on this matter"
MjolnirPants 6177 2017-11-26 2017-11-27 User's talk page has a "warning"; 2017-11-27 user undid with summary "I guess the giant red edit notice with a big, bold 'Fuck right off' wasn't clear enough"
Xiong 3484 2018-01-15 2018-01-24 2018-01-21 user replied "No problem exists ... Do not fool with my signature, ever...." 2018-01-22 I replied explaining that the problem is real and that WP:Linter says 'It is OK to edit other people's User and User talk pages ..."; 2018-01-24 user replied (unsigned/undated) "I disagree. And if you purport to have a care for form, stay in your lane."

Please ping and reply before taking any action. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Hmph. Takes all kinds. After the rest of the sigs are cleaned up, a WP:VPTECH RfC can probably resolve the matter. So could, possibly, a Phabricator ticket to just ignore ("swallow" and not send to user agents) invalid markup that's already been cleaned up except for the hostile or careless, the way we do with <img>...</img> and various other markup that MW doesn't support in wikicode. The worst that would happen is their cutesy sigs will be less cutesy until they use valid markup.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech request[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=821149614&oldid=821148429 - looks like the same titles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Yeah, it was just a typo; someone intuited what was intended given the rest of the RMs in the series.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, I saw. I just couldn't figure it out quickly enough myself for some reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, the earlier ones got acted on so quickly, the context was lost. I expected it to take longer myself and for all of them to still be there when the last one was saved; ended up edit-conflicting.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cat face[edit]

Decree.png This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects the wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Face-grin.svg

I have given up on my years of resistance against emoji, and am hereby replacing my Unicode-art cat face in my sig; using the graphical one is a space saver.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Per your change, here's a fish for your cat to eat: 🐠. North America1000 09:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Nom nom nom.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to find barnstars[edit]

Hello, Stanton! I've read that you struggle to find barnstars. My suggestion is to check here in Commons, where there's lots of specific subcategories. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, though the point is that we should be able to find them on WP itself, without some self-appointed pack of gatekeepers making this difficult. They've refused to acknowledge the issues they're causing and said I should just RfC it, so that's what'll happen when I get around to it. One of those "be careful what you wish for" things. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to make {{more citations needed}} happen.[edit]

It will never happen. @Timrollpickering: KMF (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be experiencing a time warp. Already did happen, and your MR has no merit. "I don't like it" isn't a rationale; the close itself has to be faulty.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Bot request for WP:WPENGLISH[edit]

Confused about a seeming advice notice you posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Languages#Bot for WP:WPENGLISH talking about a bot request you made somewhere. You seem to be pointing to a very long section name at WT:Bot requests that I suspected was actually two links (the with not being part of either one) and I was just going to add some brackets to fix it up for you, but then looking at WT:Bot requests, I couldn't find anything by you; in fact, the most recent change to that page is from November, so I just left everything as is. You might want to untangle it all. Best, Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I just clicked the link to WT:WPLANG, and clicked the link in it there to WP:BOTREQ and it goes directly to the quite short "#Tag talk pages of articles about English with Template:WikiProject English language" section as intended. It's at WP:BOTREQ, not WT:BOTREQ (the talk page about how to operate the BOTREQ page). There's no tangle.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Only fair[edit]

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CassiantoTalk 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not be silly. I didn't perform any reverts at all; I tried numerous ways to integrate the very point at the core of your objection: that the case in which the serial comma introduces ambiguity is simply poor writing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
No, lets not, but then that's a bit of a hypocritical, isn't it, seeing as you did exactly the same on SchroCat's talk page. The fact you didn't use the revert feature is irrelevant; you indirectly reverted to another version that wasn't SchroCat's, which amounts to the same thing. And I'm not surprised he reverted you when you use questionable prose like this. CassiantoTalk 23:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant SchroCat; you two tagteam so much you're indistinguishable. Regardless, the silly tit-for-tat template you've left for me is not applicable; I performed zero reverts, only edits attempting to merge SchroCat's concerns and mine.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course it wouldn't be "applicable" , would it, because you received it. You're hardly going to think it's justified, and if you did, you certainly wouldn't tell me, would you? Let's not forget, it takes two to edit war, and from an outsider looking in, you were the most definitely the second, although you went round the houses to do it. This'll be my last post. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 23:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:REVERT, especially WP:3RR, and WP:ANEW. You're simply wrong on this. If party A makes an edit, party B reverts it, party A tries a different edit to merge A and B's concerns, B reverts, A tries another approach to getting what both A and B want, and B reverts, only B is editwarring, and only B has hit 3RR, A having 0 reverts. A is attempting to reach compromise, B simply to stonewall.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

 Done

Hello! An old dispute that you were involved in has been brought up again. Your opinion is greatly valued. Thank you! KevinNinja (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up on RfC at the MoS re Arab/Arabic usage[edit]

Re just-started Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_Should_the_usage_of_the_terms_"Arab"_and_"Arabic"_be_guided_by_the_Manual_of_Style? - the discussion might well benefit from any background info you may be aware of regarding the cultural sensitivity argument for Arab/Arabic MoS guidance. Batternut (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's more of a mainstream English matter. Even mentioning "cutural sensitivity" just resulted in drama, and WT:MOS is really not the place for it anyway; maybe List of English words with disputed usage is the place to source something like that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please trim your statement[edit]

 Done

Hi, SMcCandlish. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Civility issues[edit]

Clearly Cassianto needs to be topic-banned from infoboxes, and ArbCom should consider whether further sanctions are needed. But a SchroCat is a metaphysical problem, because they might or might not be in the (info)box depending on the phase of the moon. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: As I said at the request page, this isn't about infoboxes, but about behavior. I don't care if C and S share exactly the same viewpoint on infoboxes (they both actually claim to not be staunch opponents, just opposed to particular cases, yet always seem to be opposing, so I really don't know what to make of what they say, and I really don't care much about infoboxes anyway, being rather neutral on them but cognizant of the broad support they seem to have). What I care about is the CIVIL/AGF/NPA-violating pattern, which they both share. It's a difference of minor degree only. My position would be exactly the same if they were instead usually blowing up on people about astronomy or Pokémon Go; the infobox connection is irrelevant, and it's lame that so many people are focusing on that topic (looks like trying to WP:WIN a pro-infobox position to me).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I see cats, but maybe you missed my sarcasm about Schrodinger's Cat. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I did get the reference, but didn't realize it was sarcasm. This poor medium, no voice tone ....  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not continue your lies here. The diffs you have posted at ArbCom do not show what you claim, and nearly every line you have written about me is either a lie or a half truth. I suggest that should you not wish me to comment on your talk page, you do not discuss me on your talk page, particularly when veering so far from the truth. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean me, not Robert McClendon. I'll leave it to ArbCom to interpret the diffs I've provided, and there are so very many more. I haven't said anything here that can be characterized as a "lie".

If you don't wish to comment on my talk page then don't comment on it. I understand the defensive urge to profess one's innocence (don't we all?), but you surely realize venting at me isn't going to change my mind or anyone else's. Apoplexy wins no hearts and minds, and just makes you look all the more intemperate. PS: those who nuke everything they don't like off their own talk pages aren't in a position to dictate what others talk about on theirs, certainly not just to escape critical scrutiny.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I mean your lies, details of which I have sent on to the committee. - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever, man. Repeat: "I'll leave it to ArbCom to interpret the diffs I've provided, and there are so very many more." The case looks likely to be accepted, so we'll air it out openly. No hurry. PS: Your continued accusations, on wiki, of lying but without any diffs to prove that accusation constitute sanctionable WP:ASPERSIONS, so I'll also repeat: "just makes you look all the more intemperate". See also the first law of holes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Not without diffs. ArbCom have full details of your claims, and the nonsense that lies behind them, along with a request for a formal two way IBAN. As to the rest of your comments, there is no "Apoplexy", and as for deleting things from my talk page, its a common activity, apparently. More examples of your ongoing gaslighting? Hopefully an IBAN will bring an end to these and others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Repeat: "The case looks likely to be accepted, so we'll air it out openly." ArbCom generally ignores attempts to provide diffs in e-mail that should be done openly and in-process, as evasive and an attempt to manipulate while avoiding scrutiny. And they won't impose any IBAN or anything else without airing that openly, either. If you want an IBAN, by what reasoning are you still posting to my talk page? It's another example of your "say one thing, do another" shtick.

Moving on: Pretty much everyone deletes a talk post that's unconstructive now and again; you do it so frequently with anything you see as critical, it causes communication problems.

Finally, "gaslighting" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, in any of the three commonly accepted usages (the Trump sense of trying to convince the world that one didn't say what one definitely did say, the vague sense of playing individual perception mind-games with people to trip them up, or the original but disused sense of psychological torture by convincing someone they're losing their mind). The word doesn't pertain to anything here. In fairness, I'll warn you that I learned the hard way that ArbCom (the last one, which shares key members with the current one) reacts quite negatively to that exact word, because the original sense is not quite extinct; I'd used it in the first and second senses, and got a stern admonition about it. That said, if one were to employ either of those two senses to this discussion, it's not me they'd apply to, and the intimidation tactics you try (e.g. this "I tattled to ArbCom with BIG SEKRITS and you're in so much trouble" game you're bringing to me now, as if we're in elementary school) share many elements with the original meaning of the word, though these antics don't work on me.

Now, please go away; you can't make your displeasure with me any more clear by continuing, and you're distracting me from real work, fixing up a quartet of interrelated articles in bad need of repair.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SchroCat - Remember that what you post here may and probably will be diffed to ArbCom, and it will be a case partly about civility even if the arbitrators would rather it weren't. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
More to the point, the majority are voting to accept the case on the basis that it will be primarily a civility examination, not "ARBINFOBOX2".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, SMcCandlish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Geoff | Who, me? 15:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dicdef[edit]

Thanks for explanation on dictionary definitions re: Who (pronoun). trout Self-troutAnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
contribs
) 14:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@AnAwesomeArticleEditor: Just a minnow! >;-) No prob, and you'd hardly be the first to not get the distinction right off the bat. For a couple of years, we had people trying to delete and move to Wiktionary all the encyclopedic glossary articles, too, like Glossary of cue sports terms. While most or all of them do have some entries that are dicdef-ish, just for completeness, many entries are quite encyclopedic, providing all sorts of background info, and they serve an internal reader-helping purpose, in reducing the need to re-re-re-explain the same things endlessly every time a jargon term is used in another article. Imagine what, say, Nine-ball or Snooker would look like if that glossary did not exist (see the frequency with which {{Cuegloss}} is used).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Call of the Wild
Loipe Engenhahn.jpg
Precious six years

... for improving article quality in January 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I do my best!  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

CanEng[edit]

"Canada in particular is undergoing major usage shifts, as can be seen by comparing fairly current Canadian dictionaries and style guides with those from the 1990s and earlier (on the plus side, it's shifting away from chaos and slowly towards standardization) ... we know the shifts are moving from the coastal cities inland)"—can you throw some sources my way? These are surprising things to read—I'm not aware of such "major shifts" that have occurred since I was in high school in the 1990s, and the idea that "shifts are moving from the coastal cities inland" seems counterintuitive—traditionally (and from personal experience) the east coast tends to be linguistically conservative. I'd be surprised if there were trends converging from both coasts, and I'm not aware of any evidence of that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Stuff I was reading like 5 years ago. The most linguistically conservative are the rural (pretty much anywhere). Major cities like Toronto and Vancouver are melting pots of international influence, and change happens faster there. Media production is also concentrated in them (TO ever more so as it turns into "Hollywood of the Northeast"), and effects thus radiate out from them to rural areas. Similarly, Iowa and Ayrshire have near-zero impact, while New York and California, like London and Manchester, have major impact on US and British English, respectively. Colloquialisms also arise faster in and spread farther out of urban centers than into them from the countryside.

The current Canadian dictionaries and style guides go into some of the corpus material, and at least one of them discusses changes that are underway; I think Editing Canadian English has the most of that material. The works that're more specific are journal papers; some might be cited at Canadian English; I don't presently have JSTOR, etc., but it's worth seeing what's come out from 2005 onward. After construction at my place, lots of my books are in boxes; the two to look at first would be latest editions of Editing Canadian English (2000) and The Canadian Style (1997), and compare what they say to old editions. I'm pulling the dates from Amazon listings. Oxford also puts out two Canadian English dictionaries (both 2005, with different editors; I think I have only one of them), and a Canadian A to Z of Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation (2003, which I do have, but it's a pocket book), and a Guide to Canadian English Usage (2005; I don't think I have that one yet). One of the university-oriented style manuals produced in the US by Diana Hacker, et al., also has an adapted Canadian edition, which I have around somewhere, though I'd consider that a tertiary source (someone Canadian just edited it to reflect a few Can. vs. US distinctions). That's A Canadian Writer's Referece; I have 2011, but there's a 2016 version now (too expensive for what it is, if you ask me, though it's on discount sale at Amazon right now). The first two I mentioned, and the Oxford GCEU, are the big ones, and they conflict on many points. Oh! Editing Canadian English is now out in the new 3rd ed. [16] (2015; it was still in production last I'd looked). Should provide an additional reference point on what's shifting, by comparing three successive editions. There's also the Canadian Press Stylebook (2013 seems to be latest edition, and I think mine's from 2008 or so), which will reflect news-style biases from AP Stylebook, etc. – lots of punctuation-dropping, space-dropping, and other compression techniques.

Anyway, the gist is that on any choices between "American" and "British" style, Canadian usage is mixed, the mixture varies regionally, and it's shifting over time in various ways (maybe more since the '80s than the '90s). I didn't live there long enough to entirely absorb the style, or determine sub-styles, and that was over a decade ago anyway. I have not tried to work much on the Canadian English article, or I would have a much better sense of exactly which sources say what.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably addl. sources in Canadian Shift, which seems to still be happening (as of stuff published 2015–2017). Something new-ish: Canadian English: A Sociolinguistic Perspective (James A. Walker, 2015; Routledge); that didn't exist last I looked into this stuff, but would probably cite the same papers I'd encountered back around 2012 or so and didn't retain. One I was aware of but don't have is The English Language in Canada (Charles Boberg, 2010; Cambridge). And of course The Atlas of North American English (Labov, Ash & Boberg, 2006; De Gruyter) will have material of interest, but it's dense linguistic stuff, not akin to a style guide. Costs about US$700–1000, so it's something to find at a research library or through inter-library loan.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll have to look into what I can from that, but an awful lot of it has to do with phonetics and informal-register stuff, doesn't it? How much of a "major shift" does this stuff point to in formal writing? The Canadian newssites I frequent use all the same orthographical conventions I grew up with.
"Major cities like Toronto and Vancouver are melting pots of international influence, and change happens faster there" seems to contradict "shifts are moving from the coastal cities inland"—Toronto's not exactly a coastal city, and one wouldn't expect Halifax to be a hotbed of influential orthographical change. And it's overwhelmingly orthography we're talking about ("punctuation-dropping, space-dropping, and other compression techniques" doesn't really apply, since ENGVAR generally doesn't apply to that stuff anyways). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The English Language in Canada doesn't appear to go into orthography. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm counting TO as a coastal city, because it's a major Great Lakes port, is Canada's NYC, and is separated from the Atlantic by New York. Goods flow from the east coast of Canada and the US through TO in staggering quantities. More to the underlying point (about population and its dynamics, not really geography) it serves the societal function of a major coastal city, and is where the largest number of immigrants to Canada go, and is a production center, especially for major national media. Anyway, I was using "coastal cities" as a shorthand; obviously it doesn't mean "every place larger than a town that's near the sea". :-) Halifax isn't coastal anyway, but insular. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to have other than about "majorness", and it's not not a hair I care to split. The few Canadian style guides and similar works I've gone over in any detail indicate a lack of conformity, with wide regional variation, but also that the inconsistency is decreasing over time (especially in major media, the point you seem to be making yourself). I agree that we don't want to see people try to use ENGVAR (as often actually happens, especially from British editors who read a lot of news but few books) to do reader un-helpful things like compress out spaces and punctuation in imitation of news style (e.g. "9pm", "JK Rowling").  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Uh ... you might want to check your geography—Nova Scotia's no island, and Toronto's 900 km from the sea. Most Canadians would consider it Central Canada, and there are more Canadians east of it than west, which makes calling it "coastal" all the more eye-popping to a Canadian—when you talk about "from the coasts in", it sounds like Toronto is the last to be affected (!!!). I'll have to look at some more of those sources you've pointed out, but I suspect the "major shift" in formal orthography amounts to little more than decreasing prevalence of -ise and increasing tolerance of practice as a verb. The point being that "Canada ... is undergoing major usage shifts" is quite an exaggeration, and I think readers of your comments are going to take it at face value when, really, formal Canadian orthography is probably nearly as stable as BrEng or AmEng (certainly from a MoS perspective). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Geography: My bad; I'd mistaken Halifax for being on PEI, rather than on the peninsula. Just forget "coastal"; it was the wrong word to use. The point is the major urban centers with a strong and continual influx of new people from other parts of the world, also operating as hubs of media production. Halifax is insular in effect; it has a population smaller than that of Albuquerque, is not a media or immigration centre, and not terribly important in the national cultural scheme of things, unlike Toronto, which together with Vancouver is one of Anglo-Canada's modern cultural poles.

How much stability there is or isn't in Canadian orthography will be clear from a comparison of current and generation-old or older Canadian style guides and dictionaries. Whether to characterize the shift as "major" or not seems like not worth arguing about; the important thing is whether the orthography is actual stabilizing or becoming more diverse again. What I was seeing half a decade ago was a nascent trend toward standardization; since at least two of the key works have more recent editions, they're liable to indicate whether the trend continued or foundered. Another set of sources is academic material. I don't have a lot of it on hand, but references to it are easy to find via Google in minutes. From the 1960s to ca. 2000, it's been frequently questioned whether Canadian English (especially in written form) really exists as a consistent, identifiable thing unto itself, generally because of a refusal to standardize, i.e. because of an embracement of conflicting, diverse usage, which varies greatly on a regional basis, over time, and especially in areas of differing cultural history, and this uncertainty is tied closely to a comparative lack of a strong national identity among Canadians (Bednarek 2009, citing lots of previous work [17]). Lilles (2000) [18] and Sutherland (2000) [19] seem to be the most-cited in this regard; the first of these has been subjected to a some criticism [20], but it still referenced a lot.

The key question is whether standardization has reduced or increased in the last generation. And it's really more a question (and research) for the Canadian English article, which appears to ignore this controversy entirely; our article is engaging in begging the question, and what looks like some original research. It really doesn't have much to do with MoS, at which we do appear to have a consensus to treat Canadian English (to the extent it can be identified) as a major national variety for ENGVAR purposes, though perhaps at the cost of setting up potential arguments down the road about exactly what that means in orthographic terms. The lack of active disputes seems to suggest either that that orthography's become rather stable during or maybe even before WP's existence (WP started Jan. 2001), or that Canadians in the aggregate are loath to argue with much insistence about such matters (which is actually a reliably sourceable possibility), or both.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've had the Canadian English article watchlisted for years, and it seems to be an OR magnet, but it's hard for me to clean up when all the good sources are offline in a different hemisphere. The thing is, I totally understand the "urbans centres blah blah blah" thing—but that's not what you wrote at TALK:MOS, even if it's what you intended—as I said, to anyone who is familiar which Canadian geopolitics (say, any Canadian), you've written basically the opposite of what you intended to convey.
I'll be looking into those links and other sources, but more out of personal curiosity (at least where I can access the sources). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I've struck "coastal" and put "major" in its place.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Deferred to WT:LIVESTOCK: the necessary article is missing, but should not be.

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS[edit]

 You are invited to view the closure at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS, an RFC launched by you. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#RfC:_Capitalisation_of_traditional_game/sports_terminology[edit]

Hi SMcCandish. Just a note to let you know I've closed an RFC you initiated, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#RfC:_Capitalisation_of_traditional_game/sports_terminology. Apologies for the delay, I'm working through the closure backlog as best I can. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 13:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda[edit]

I saw your comment here. The dispute on this article goes back a few years, and if I can summarise from memory, there is a group of editors who believe that as Ayurveda is sometimes portrayed as being efficacious medicine in the modern age, it should be fully subject to MEDRS. Therefore the article's lead should begin by debunking it. Then there is another group which says that as this is a belief system which predates modern medicine, the lead should be a summary of its history. I can see that there may be merits on both sides, or at least that neither view is automatically disruptive or against our principles. Historically, there were savage back-and-forths in editing and much name-calling on the talk page. I was asked to take a look and (again from memory) initially applied 0RR and a strict civility rule. A couple of editors were blocked, I think there was a central discussion, my actions were upheld, the restriction was changed to a prohibition on edit-warring, and the article settled down for about three years. Fast forward to the present. As far as I can see, the restrictions have worked, and it's hard to argue given the history that a return to open warfare is in anybody's interest. Articles are not improved by name-calling or edit-warring. They are improved by civilised discussion, a strong consensus from a wide range of editors, and a willingness to compromise in the face of nuance. I don't see any tearing hurry to resolve this as the article is protected for a while; I will read up on the story again in the next few days and see if I remember it all correctly, and what, if anything, needs to be changed. I believe I am in quite a good position to judge this, as I am neither involved nor WP:INVOLVED in the situation, and I think the years of peace on the article bear out my admin judgement. On the other hand the article isn't terribly good. Perhaps one of the problems has been the historical focus on what the lead should say, a sign that there are camps of editors who want the article to take very different slants. Perhaps rather than arguing about the first paragraph, there needs to be a discussion about what exactly the article should be about, and how much weight it gives to the subject's history, and how much to its manifestation in the present day. It's a difficult situation and I'd be grateful for your thoughts on it, either here or at article talk. --John (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@John:Yes, I skimmed the archives. The recent stuff appears to be civilized discussion (unless something's been redacted – and especially compared to other MEDRS disputes like the ones about e-cigs, and many of the other FRINGE disputes). The back-and-forth is quite minor, mostly about the lead, as you say. The MEDRS-focused editors appear to feel administratively threatened, and that should probably be assuaged. We really do have a responsibility to get this right from a MEDRS perspective, and that arguably outweighs cultural/historical sensitivity matters. I would think the solution is probably WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF, with Ayurveda as an overview article, and separate articles on ayurveda as medicine and ayurveda as tradition (for starters). Depending on whether controversy there has died down, the Traditional Chinese medicine article could also be used as a model; it's spun off a large number of detailed articles. I personally think it leans in overall presentation too much toward credibility and too far from MEDRS, but it is pretty comprehensive otherwise, both at the main article level and the total coverage level.

The key encyclopedic challenge with things like this is that none of the central tenets have a scientific basis. No one can find chi or kunalini "energy" in laboratory-controlled conditions. Ergo, it appears to be in the same category as semi-recent Western belief in phlogiston, the four elements, cold as a force unto itself (rather than lack of heat), the idea that disease can be cured with mercury and leeches and is caused by bad air or the Devil, acceptance of Fruedian psychoanalysis and Jungian archetypes, and so on. Some of these beliefs (especially in Satan, Freud, and Jung) are still prevalent in certain circles, but we do not treat them as a form of scientifically backed medical diagnosis on Wikipedia.

I've seen people raise this before, so I'll pre-emptively address it here: I think that MEDRS being "only a guideline" is similar to CIVILPOV being "only an essay"; it's the wrong approach to thinking about it at all. Guidelines are best practices we really should be following unless there are very strong reasons to not do so in a particular case. The principal difference between policies and guidelines isn't even level of consensus, but the nature of the rules: policies are the bare minimum for the project to be functional at all, while guidelines are what enable to it run smoothly instead of in fits and starts, and essays (of the site-wide buy-in variety) are what fine-tune it to high performance. They're all consensus. The consensus conflict here is, overall, between V/RS and NOR plus FRINGE and MEDRS on one side, NPOV as the fulcrum, and SYSTEMICBIAS on the other. The consensus weight seems to lean heavily against playing up ayurveda as medicine.

The fact that ayurveda is old has nothing at all to do with how we present its efficaciousness; exorcism of disease demons and application of leeches and such are also ancient. The lead should include a brief summary of ayurveda's history, but also include the skeptical scientific consensus (which includes doctors from India – plenty of scientists come from there and not everyone's a devout Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, any more than everyone in the West is all about Jesus and the Bible). The medical responsibility angle would suggest front-loading that material, even if the bulk of the lead is the historical background. That's the long version; I could distill the key points to a couple of sentences for the article talk page if it would be helpful, but I tend not to wander onto such pages if I can help it; they seem to be drama magnets.

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This may interest you[edit]

In case you haven't read it, this might interest you: Oxford Comma Dispute Is Settled as Maine Drivers Get $5 Million. Thinker78 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this example should go in the appropriate MOS section (to illustrate not only serial comma issues, but semicolons). EEng 05:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha. Not the first time something like this has happened, though perhaps the most expensive.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the meaning of a {{GOCEinuse}} template?[edit]

I have been editing the article Pieve Vergonte and someone placed said template in the article. I'm a member of the guild, but I don't know what to make of the template. For me, it is saying that all guild members may be working on the article, but it may mean also that a single editor is editing the article and that I shouldn't edit. Also, the template may have been placed because I am working on the article. How should I interpret the template? In the guild, it says "Consider adding {{GOCEinuse}} to articles you are in the process of copy editing", but the template itself says, "This article or section is currently undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed", which seems to be saying that editors who are not guild members should not edit, but guild members are working on it and are welcome to edit. It is kind of confusing the seemingly contradictory information. Maybe the template should say that a member is working on the article, that way other members and editors would understand they shouldn't edit while it is up? Thinker78 (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: I think it's the same as the other in-use templates; it indicates someone from GoCE is currently working on it, and they hope it will be left alone in the interim to avoid edit conflicts. I agree the wording is confusing. The template is also redundant and should just merge to {{In use}}. You could probably just boldly redirect it, and failing that, take it to WP:TFD.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the documentation for {{GOCEinuse}} to explain its use more fully. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
We should still probably have some rewritten wording in the template, or a merger, but that's an improvement. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of oldest living people[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You just pop up everywhere[edit]

[21] EEng 22:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just couldn't get enough of you ... Curly "blush blush" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a conspiracy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Appeasement[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appeasement. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence length[edit]

Hi SMcCandlish The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 1400 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 00:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Amortias: Should be 1000; I'm clearly a party even if I've been accidentally left off the party list. I'll see about cutting it down to 1000; I didn't have time before 00:01 Feb. 18 UTC to shorten the material. I'm also almost out of time today for WP stuff, so this may have to wait until tomorrow.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Trimmed to approx. 1100, not counting "[1]", etc., or my sig as words. There are 55 diffs (several are reused to prove different quotes). I can squeeze this to 1000 tomorrow. Being an actual party, I'm not willing to go lower, or it'll simply remove the evidence for why SchroCat is properly a party and why his behavior has to be addressed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Now it's under 1000. If the party request is denied for some reason and a 500-word limit is imposed, I'll leave it clerks to axe it how they like.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggested - on the workshop talk, and not only for your evidence - that the arbs focus on recent events (2018, 2017) rather than former ones. I rather like to forget that I had to appear at AE, for example, correct as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, the evidence deadline is over. It's too late for me to re-do it to focus on 2017+; I would have to spend literally several days researching diffs from S&C's edit history, and it wouldn't be worth the time and effort even if the material would be accepted, which it would not be. I have doubt that any action will be taken about S's behavior in this case anyway, only C's. I have, however, established a that there's a behavior pattern going back at least as far as 2016, so S can take his likely escape-with-a-warning as a signal to change his approach, or he'll just end up back there (or AE, or ANI) again, and the evidence of not having changed the behavior since 2016 will not go unnoticed. Presenting that material was worth the effort in the long run, since I'd already done 95% of the work to collect and sort it. I'm now going back to what I'm actually here for (and probably not until tomorrow+; I don't have much time for WP right now, and drama has consumed too much of it already).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Understand, thank you for explaining. I looked - prompted by the request for diffs about edit-warring - at just the changes to the article Cary Grant from removal of the infobox in 2016 to now, where C appears rarely, and S not at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I long ago lost track of which FA or FAC was being fought over. I actually avoid going near any of them for any reason, because if the local OWNers don't want to fight about an infobox, they want to fight about something else, even whether you're "allowed" to remove or add a comma from "their" precious masterpiece. FA long ago turned into more trouble than it is worth. I've said for years that the encyclopedic endeavor is better served by spending a day vastly improving 5 or ten stubs than barely perceptibly improving one article that's already a GA or A-class. If your point was just that it's possible to find a case of either C or S getting involved in an infobox dispute with the other not actually showing up, I have no doubt that's true; people do have lives and none of us are on here 24/7. It doesn't mean the overall tagteam pattern isn't obvious and demonstrated. Anyway, I did the Workshop page input I'm willing to (this is already a bunch of tiresome noise to me, that never should have been necessary). I trust it's enough for ArbCom to work with, and if it's not, then either the behavior will stop of it's own accord, or it won't and it'll get dealt with in a later case.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, clicking on either Kubrick or Sellers in my post will take you to many other IB and article problems with many more diffs, in case they're of use. I realize that the IB discussion is apparently over, however. --Light show (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Worth a look anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything really usable there. The consensus in both cases was that you were being disruptive, and you got topic-banned both times. I've already mentioned their incivility toward you in evidence already, and that's probably sufficient (even if you were being being disruptive, it's not license for others to pretend our behavioral policies magically don't apply to them). And the evidence phase is over; all one could do at this point is mention stuff on the Workshop talk page, and it's fairly apt to be ignored as too late. I did add some today, but only in response to unproven accusations by SchroCat.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You've been added as a party, and you are welcome to modify your evidence – the evidence phase will remain open for at least 24 hours from now. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    Somehow didn't see this until just now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Herding Internet standards cats re <cite>[edit]

As a part of this discussion from a few years ago, you managed to convince the W3C to update their copy of the specification and their cheatsheet for <cite>. However, the WHATWG still uses the old definition (both in the element definition and its suggested rendering, and apparently their FAQ [FAQ spot 2]). Do you know the best way to herd those cats to The Better Way? :) --Izno (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Not at present. I've raised the issue on one of their mailing lists, and with one of their people in direct e-mail, and the general feeling I get is that they're resistant because it's more important for them to position themselves as The One True HTML5. I don't think they're going to budge without further pressure to do so, and this is probably best done at their wiki page on this element. https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Cite_element It's a matter of getting the attention of anyone autoconfirmed at #whatwg on irc.freenode.net to set up a wiki.whatwg.org account; you can't just go register for one. I'm on the IRC channel right now and no one is responding. Our own Andy Mabbtt/Pigsonthewing, has already chimed in at that wiki page. Any chance you can help people create an account there, Andy? You're not on their short list of permanent autoconfirmed, but I'm not sure those are the only account creators. I requested one via e-mail before, twice, but never heard back.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: Update: One MikeSmith is on right now, and is dealing with it for me. He says they ignore the e-mail requests, and that some of them are trying to discourage use of that wiki entirely because they want to move the material to Github, but others disagree; He'll create accounts via IRC request. Just needs desired login ID, and e-mail address.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The One True HTML5 struck me as a correct analysis after reading this bit in their FAQ. --Izno (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the site now, but want to pore over the material before I chime in there.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Gosh, that was almost a decade ago. I've no recollection of how I got an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It's all good. Well, getting into the site is. Getting anything to change, tougher nut to crack.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Proper names & {{lang}}[edit]

Hi. Should proper names be enclosed in {{lang}}? I've just been to Anatole France and someone has templated every single french word and name. This strikes me as extreme, but I'd leave well enough alone if there were no harm. But {{lang}} automatically italicizes everything, so in many of these cases, either the template has to be removed, or it has to be supplemented with |italic=unset. The closest direction I find is MOS:LANG which gives Assemblée nationale as an appropriately-templated term, but I couldn't find explicit direction on personal names, and figured you'd have some insight. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Phil wink: Consensus seems to be "don't bother", unless an alternative name is being presented to an English one, e.g. Munich ({{lang-de|italic=no|München}}). It's not wrong to do something like {{lang|fr|italic=no|Guillaume Apollinaire}}, but it probably serves no encyclopedic purpose except in the person's own lead (all it's going to do for a proper name by itself is offer a pronunciation clue to higher-end screen readers with multilingual support). It's arguably important that our articles indicate correct pronunciation at the subject's own article – though we also have templates that do this – but not such much in a running sentence that happens to mention that person, especially given that in running English the average speaker is very unlikely to drop into a French-correct pronunciation of a name like Guillaume Apollinaire, and doing so can be distracting.

E.g., I watched a lot of stuff about Montserrat after the volcano went off there, and about 90% of the time, English-speaking newscasters used the English pronunciation, /mɒntsəˈræt/ (mont-suh-RAT) or something close to this (often without the first t), about 9% of the time a bastardized "Franglais" pronunciation along the lines of /mɒnseˈra/ (mon-say-RAH), which came across as pretentious, and in one case the correct French (which our own article doesn't even use; it's something like /mõse'ʁa/ (with a nasalized first vowel, and a guttural r), which was so distracting I tended to lose track of the sentence. The same effect is sometimes heard in the Southwestern US when certain Hispanic newscasters insist on full-Spanish pronunciation of Spanish names even for subjects (like various actors and sports figures with English as their first or only language) who don't use them (think "Gonzales" approximately as "gohn-SAH-lace"). It's a form of hypercorrection, similar to insisting on sticking in a č in names that shouldn't have one like Stana Katic (the fact that her grandfather would have used Katič is irrelevant).

Anyway, some argue not to use lang templates for proper names at all, only for words, because Guillaume Apollinaire is the guy's name in English, and Spanish, and whathaveyou, not just in French. This view would make an exception for Munich ({{lang-de|italic=no|München}}), since the names differ. Another way of looking at it is that my first name "Stanton" tends to get converted into /əstän'ton/ (uhStahn-TONE) or /ə'stänton/ (uhSTAHN-tone) by Spanish speakers, instead of /'Stæntən/ (the "STAN-tuhn" you'd probably expect), or in some English dialects, /`Stæʔən/ with a glottal stop and almost no final vowel before the n – "STA'-nn"). But Spanish Wikipedia should not use /əstän'ton/ (much less the more Castillian /əsθän'ton/ with a 'th' sound) to render my name if they had an article on me; that would be eye dialect, bending orthography to try to match colloquial speaking accent.

The short version: There's not a clear consensus on when to use language templates with proper names, but it's generally minimized, and only used when it seems particularly helpful at a first occurrence, usually to contrast English and something else. When we need to indicate pronunciation of a proper name (including English versus something else) we usually do it with pronunciation templates, as at Tycho Brahe (though the audio file once provided for that one in Danish was terrible; the speaker ran it together sloppily as something like /ˈtɪgəˈbrɑ/ when it should have been enunciated clearly and as two names, as /ˈtyːə ˈbʁɑ/; I see that someone's finally removed it from the article). Given the recent re-tooling of the lang templates (and the auto-italicization that is non-trivial to turn off), we now have an additional reason to not use lang templates around person and place names; it will vastly clutter up the markup if we don't we reserve the use of the template around proper names for cases where it's especially pertinent. Sorry this is a long answer, but the point is to provide several points of argument articulation. We probably need to revisit this at MoS, especially since the template changes have serious consequences of code bloat, a problem that didn't exist only a couple of months ago.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your long-ass answer. I feel I should now at least be able to make edits that are not plainly wrong. Also, I will now fondly think of you as Esthantone — perhaps the designer of an especially esthetic line of Pantone colors. It was my sense (and you confirm it above) that the auto-italic feature/bug is a fairly recent addition to the {{lang}} template. There must be thousands of cases of it being used (as it frequently is in Anatole France) to designate text that should not be italicized, and indeed was not italicized when the template was placed, but is now magically being manhandled into italicization by this update. Even more insidious, I wonder what previously correct formatting advice may now be contrary to the intention of anyone who originally worked on it. A case in point: MOS:LANG which I referenced above does not state but pretty strongly implies that Assemblée nationale should be italicized. However, all that is actually being recommended is the template ({{lang|fr|Assemblée nationale}}), and the italics appear to be merely an artifact of the template update — it seems likely that this update has changed, even contradicted, the intended style advice in the Manual of Style itself. Finally (in case you have to give this advice again), you've suggested using |italic=no above, but on balance it seems to me more sound to use |italic=unset. The first forces no italic regardless of circumstance, whereas the second just goes with whatever the wikicode around it demands. This second option seems much more intuitive from a user perspective, and would continue yielding non-surprising results if, say, the code were copied for use in a different context. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Phil wink: In the long run, the auto-italics are a boon (and it's only applied to Latin-based scripts), since about 95% of usage is in cases we actually want italics. Before, each template was utterly randomly either italicizing or not by default, and it was maddening; often even the {{lang|xx}} and {{lang-xx}} versions of the templates for a given language were inconsistent. Some peeps are working on tracking down all the italicized cases that shouldn't be in italics; see Template talk:Lang for more info; I think they'd appreciate more eyes and hands on the job. I would like to see a shorthand syntax like |i=n (or |i=u, |i=y) also be available. You're correct about MOS:LANG and {{lang|fr|Assemblée nationale}}; last I looked at MOS:LANG and was working on it, it was not yet certain whether the templates would auto-italicize, and since they now do, that needs an update to show |italics=unset; the rule is to not italicize proper names of any kind (unless they would be italicized for some other reason, e.g. being a book title). I agree on |italics=unset versus |italics=no; I hadn't thought about it until this second, because I'm generally working in plain article text where the non-italics is the desired result for such thing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robin Hood[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robin Hood. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Fixed

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Barbet dog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dog show
Bichon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Water spaniel

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Water ski[edit]

Will "water ski" still be separate words under your proposal? If so I can fully support it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Depends on what the sourcing tells us. They might remain separate, for the base noun ("I have good water skis"). English fully-compounds regular noun phrases considerably less readily than multi-part verbs/verbals/gerunds and adjectives (doing it with nouns is primarily a tech geek habit, and even then is most often done with verb phrases that have been "nouned", e.g. "my backups", "an overload", a habit the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel has been excoriating for two generations to little avail). For the verb "to waterski" it would necessarily be a single word if we have "waterskiing", otherwise the latter could not linguistically arise ("to dog groom" does not become "she dooggrooms", "I doggroomed","he's doggrooming", though most people would probably hyphenate that particular one in all cases).

I hate to sound like a broken "Mr. Critical" record, but I think you're taking an unhelpful approach to this. It's not a tit-for-tat negotiation; we do not support or oppose based on whether we'll get what we want later on some side topic. Whether it should be "water ski[s]", "water-ski[s]" or "waterski[s]" as a noun is completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the verb and the verbal/gerund forms for the activity (and directly derived regular nouns like "waterskier"). More to the point, what you (or I, or whoever) prefer is irrelevant; we do what needs to be done, with an eye to consistency when the sources support it, and tolerant of inconsistency between different grammatical forms when they don't. I've not done the "water[-]ski" noun research because it's not the RM before us, and the answer to the question would have no bearing on this RM. It's basically the same as the "comma-Jr." thing; what you or I love [in my off-WP writing, I habitually use that comma, though I realize it dates me] and what was firmly traditional (at all or in a particular dialect) in 1977 is out the window if usage in reputable sources has provably changed. (I have no idea whether "water ski" [n] has been changing).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You had me at "I've not done the "water[-]ski" noun research because it's not the RM before us, and the answer to the question would have no bearing on this RM", which is all that was needed but I appreciate and have read your comment. If I ever meet you on the street and ask for the time-of-day I would expect to hear an interesting history of time, what exactly "day" means in the sense of the present culture, and then somehow "street" and my approach to time would be woven into it. Will adjust my comment on the page accordingly, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I would just answer you, because you wouldn't be fishing for a concession on some lost traditionalism cause. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a question I needed answered for my Support or Oppose comment. Not clear on the time question though, as the 12-hour vs 24-hour descriptors of time, not to mention UTC, Greenwich, or the long-time no-time concepts of some cultures, could factor in (and let's not get into quantum mechanics or off-world time, unless you take my "Excuse me sir, can you give me the time of day?" enquiry as referring to local time, which it probably wouldn't). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
And metric time could become involved, at which point I would jump off a bridge.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017[edit]

 Done: Also closed the RfC above it.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Question on university naming[edit]

Hey SMcCandlish, I have a question on university naming… specifically University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. It was recently moved to remove the endash because "that's what the university wants." However, I disagree, because most of the time we use the endash for universities like this not the dash. Not sure if the others at WT:MOS would agree with you or not, but since you've been helpful in the past, I figured I'd ask you first… what do we use? Thanks, Corky 02:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Corky: I think you mean "not the hyphen". In this construction it would definitely be an en dash, or a space, or a comma, or "at". A hyphen is just wrong. The fact that some people who designed that university's letterhead allegedy don't know the difference between an en dash and a hyphen is no concern of ours. (I say "allegedly" because without access to the exact specific font files they use, we have no proof what character they typed when designing their logo – the two glyphs are not visually distinct in all fonts, so there's a WP:NOR problem with claims that "they use a hyphen". They may use it in things like typed memos, but business English and encyclopedic English are not the same register, so again we don't care. WP follows the WP MoS, not some third-party business English MoS, and not the UW house style. @Dicklyon: Haven't we been over "university hyphens" before somewhere?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: correct ping.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! That definitely helps. Yes, I meant hyphen... 😁 Corky 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I do have one more question... could you respond to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Ampersands discouraged? Thanks, Corky 17:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Done, though I have no idea which "side" you were on. I didn't pore over the conversation, just did the "standard operating procedure" bit.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about MOS:JOBTITLES[edit]

 Done

There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't need pings to MoS threads; I watchlist those pages and check them as my first login action (even ahead of my own talk page many times). If I haven't showed up yet it's because I'm busy off-WP. :-)

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for the English WikipediaSubscription list for the multilingual edition

VisualEditor-logo.svg
Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Screenshot showing some changes, in the two-column wikitext diff display

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "Visual differences", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Toggle button showing visual and wikitext options; visual option is selected

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Screenshot showing the same changes to an article.  Most changes are highlighted with text formatting.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes[edit]

  • The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
  • The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [22]
  • Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [23]
  • The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together[edit]

  • The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
  • Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
  • The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either <references /> or the plain (no parameters) {{reflist}} template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [24]
  • If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


Production Section and Cleanup.[edit]

It's been about two months since we did an overhaul of the production section of the film manual of style, and while it's helpful to the point that I have not into any disagreements about changing production sections to fit it, there's also an overwhelming amount of articles to be fixed. I've tried three times over at Talk:Wikproject film to ask for help brainstorming a way to lessen the load and get more people involved but to no success. I'm kinda lost on what to do. There really isn't a way to announce this as a task for cleanup as it is so extensive. When I talked to @NinjaRobotPirat: he suggested creating a cleanup template and then all the pages would be neatly sorted into categories but I just don't want to go around tagging articles for an inordinate amount of time. Again. I'm kinda lost. Any advice? --Deathawk (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Ah, what you want is WP:AWB; you can use it to burn through entire category trees quickly. I'm swearing off most editing of pop-culture-related articles, myself, because too many editors spend too much time on them, and WP is dominated by them. PS: It's been my experience that major MoS changes are something that a) take a long time to propagate, organically, and b) are sped along by someone saying "F it, I'll put in the work" and hitting it for a good long time with fairly singleminded purpose. Film doesn't overwhelm me with interest to the extent I'd do that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

See Velky Kliz.jpg
High Tatras

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
... and in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
... and in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
... and in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
... and in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
... and in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A 2nd User Page Barnstar for you[edit]

Userpage Barnstar Hires.png The Userpage Barnstar
I decided you deserved this for your very interesting and informative User Page (perhaps all the more so because I only came here because we had been on opposite sides in your ENGVAR Templates RFC). Then I discovered that you already have one of these, so I decided to give you the alternative format. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tlhslobus: Thanks. :-) I consider it kind of a mess; some other editors have done a lot of fancy CSS work to make theirs better, but I don't like to spend a lot of time on userpage stuff unless it's directly geared at productivity. So, it's kind of a feature dump of tools I use, and to-dos, and proposals and their results, plus a bunch of infoboxes that I hope help explain my proclivities, skill sets, interests, and hot buttons to other editors.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it really is a mess, then it would seem to be a very useful and informative mess Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Glad it's been helpful. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters[edit]

 Done

Hi SMcCandlish, you may be interested in an evolved suggestion regarding MOS:JOBTITLES that is receiving support/non-support at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Alternative suggestion for comment. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Faith healing[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice for the record[edit]

 Done: Responded at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, to the extent a response was even needed.

Hi SMcCandlish, in the open Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


Tabletop football[edit]

Thank for redaction of this article (I am an author of piłkarzyki na sprężynkach from PL wiki). I also have found interesing article in PTwiki: pt:Futebol_de_pino. BTW what do you think about new article ca:Billiard hockey (Mybe strect is similar game to cymbergaj and gombfoci), pl:Cymbergaj and hu:Gombfoci (popular in Hungary and Brazil) artile gombfoci exist in ENwiki as Button football Dawid2009 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Interesting. "Billiard hockey" and "table hockey" (the subject of the Galician article) appear to be synonymous, in the usage of the so-called World Table Hockey Association (which seems to include two countries, not the world). It uses disks similar to those for carrom. I would cover this in a section at Table hockey games, and not give it a separate disambiguation entry at Table hockey, since it is just one of many table hockey games. Pin football, the subject of the Portuguese article, should be covered as variant at Tabletop football. Neither are independently notable enough for their own articles on English Wikipedia. I don't know what to make of the Polish game; the machine translation I get is poor enough, I'm not sure how it's really played. The term used there, cymbergaj, seems to also be used for air hockey; at least, that's how Google Translate want to treat it; if we can find more info on it, it would also go in Table hockey games. The Hungarian gombfoci ("key football") might be worth adding to Tabletop football as a variant, since it's clear from the photos that commercially made equipment for it exists. As with the Polish game, it's not clear from the article over there what the actual rules are. PS: We should probably do something about the inconsistent naming of Table hockey games and Tabletop football ("Table foo games", "Tabletop foo", and "Tabletop foo games" are all possibilities; just "Table foo" is too ambiguous on its own in both cases. I prefer the names ending in "games" because they're more WP:PRECISE, though at the expense of being WP:CONCISE, in letting the reader know they're about multiple games.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Structure of pl:Cymbergaj article seems to me be quite similar to de:pinning (rules and variants of the game) although in cymbergaj there are in usage combs/rulers or pencils (it there were also popular especially in schools) to movement buttons/coins (it can be coin game and it can be button game) so it is also similar to Tabletop football/Table hockey games. ca:Billiard hockey is czech game which reeally is comercial version of pl:Cymbergaj#Cymbergaj szóstkowy (but cymbergaj not imit hockey, it imit rather football, but it is generally not important for rules of game, similarly paper soccer = paper hockey). Genesis of Biliard Hockey is from czech game Strect (most propably similar game to Hungarian gombfoci and Polish cymbergaj), it would be as reaible source and example in Tabletop football#history (actually there isn't sources about: Inspired by home-made games involving children flicking marbles)
The term used there, cymbergaj, seems to also be used for air hockey - yes it is, but originnaly cymbergaj (cym-ber-gaj) mean something other - צו מיר גיי; see pl:Cymbergaj, pl:Jidyszyzm. And it isn't related to Air Hockey. Indentification is modernly and wrong.
We should probably do something about the inconsistent naming of Table hockey games and Tabletop football - English language isn't my native so I can talk nothing but it seems to value for disscussion. BTW, it seems to value for disscussion Paper football and Paper soccer? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
According to this disscussion (machine translation show me) that asztali labdarúgás is formal sport (like to for example Biliard Hockey or ITHF table hockey) while gombfoci is just a game (like to for example strect or carrom), views in google can confirm it. Accorting to google translate also asztali labdarúgás = Table football (litearlly not as Foosball) and gombfoci = Button football (litearlly).
Pin football (the subject of the Portugese article) actually is popular outside Brazil and has different variants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV9yCvbxsGo&index=275&t=0s&list=FLhuK0r1J-7ItoE33-yZBZwQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVdRRpKm9Q8 - video from yesterday). In Tabletop football#types also there is described most propably de: Tipp-Kick. There are also other similar games to Tabletop football and Tabletop hokey with usage of magnesium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqjiWkwIIGM , WeyKick ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAem6Zozb0Y&list=FLhuK0r1J-7ItoE33-yZBZwQ&t=0s&index=348 ), de:Klask . Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: The main issues from my perspective are these:
  1. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because one of the non-English wikis has an article on something doesn't mean en.Wikipedia should; we have a stricter WP:Notability standard than many. To the extent we cover any of these things, they should be merged into the existing articles here, which are broad enough to cover all these variants.
  2. We shouldn't include any for which there are no reliable sources. They do not need to be in English, but they do need to not be forums, blogs, and other self-published or user-generated content. When it comes to something like asztali labdarúgás, the website of the organization that promotes it is good enough to establish that it is real and what its rules are according to that organization (per WP:ABOUTSELF policy), but it doesn't help to establish notability for a separate article, since that isn't a independent source.
Personally, I have little incentive toward adding this material myself; my goal was just cleaning up the existing material. I'm happy to edit added material, for English grammar, etc. But beware of the problems of using machine translation to try to figure out what the rules of these games are. It may be better to provide only very basic information about these variants to start with; people competent in both English and whatever other language (Hungarian, Polish, Galician, etc.) can expand the information later.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
# Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Actually I am not intrested in new articles and I really perfectly well understand vision of deletionism for example in this case but I am interested in corrects in some articles. In Tabletop football#history there is sentence which is not compatibile with reliable sources (Inspired by home-made games involving children flicking marbles - althought it is also in Button football). In Tabletop football#history also is next wrong information: The earliest was Newfooty in 1929 (according to de:Tipp-Kick#Geschichte tabletop there were before, in 1921). Due to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I suggest to write it carefully and generally: 20's and with omnission of name of first authors/companies.
Just because one of the non-English wikis has an article on something doesn't mean en.Wikipedia should; we have a stricter WP:Notability standard than many. - Pin soccer (from Portugese article) should be included in Tabletop football#types. I just have explained and showed you that this game has variants and it is also popular outside Brazil. It game is more common than tabletop football with springs, due to fact tabletop football with springs in google has only two reaible sources/encyclopaedic premises: lego soccer and inspiration of Magnetic Soccer (video game), it has no sources in BoardGameGeek.
To the extent we cover any of these things, they should be merged into the existing articles here, which are broad enough to cover all these variants. - asztali labdarúgás would be as one information in Button Football. WeyKick or Klask - would be in Air hockey as one information (for example in see also, althought WeyKick can be similar to tabletop football or tabletop hockey). Biliard hockey - For including this to an other article it will be big problem here (where it would be included?). Billiard hockey's look/imitation is like hockey but mechanic of gameplay/rules of game is like to tabletop football or button football. However Table hockey games should have Template:Cleanup reorganize. For the one side this article describe different tabletop hockey games like to in Tabletop football) for the other side this article should be megred with ITHF table hockey - problematic is section Original table hockey - who sets some standards? It is not compatibile with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and some variants aren't very other than ITHF table hockey
A propos cymbergaj (game's name from yiddish, game is coin football and button football) interesing also is edition of Izrael IP (I just have corrected this mistake )
Personally, I have little incentive toward adding this material myself; my goal was just cleaning up the existing material. I'm happy to edit added material, for English grammar, etc. - What do you think about disscussion about Paper soccer and Paper football? Paper soccer is in google popular as paper soccer but it is most propably just due to de fact article in English Wikipedia has been created in 2004 in US English and the name Paper soccer has been popularised in Internet. Are these de facto original research? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable to me. On the final point: I don't know. It would be original research to decide that "paper soccer" is more popular in Google than "paper football" because of original research. >;-) I would keep it at Paper soccer because Paper football is a completely different article, and Paper soccer is sufficient disambiguation and precision and recognizability in English. It's a total myth that association football is only called "soccer" by Americans; the short name actually originated in England. It's just not used in any "official" capacity by association football governing bodies and such.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United Kingdom general election, January 1910#Requested move 2 March 2018[edit]

 Done

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom general election, January 1910#Requested move 2 March 2018. --Neve~selbert 19:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

 Done

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there, since I was the nominator of the previous RM.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of honorific titles[edit]

 Done

I would appreciate if you could comment about which of these two articles has the correct title formatting: Kentucky colonel and Nebraska Admiral. Both of these are honorific titles bestowed by the governor of the state in question. (In case you would prefer to reply there, I just posed the same question at User talk:Shadow007.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll comment there, to centralize discussion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Veteran editor using circular references[edit]

An editor working on the article Sinn Sisamouth is placing inline citations with a circular reference of a website that copied verbatim Wikipedia content. If I understand correctly he is doing it as a placeholder and to get a better reference, something I don't understand. [He added the citation] (which is used in several places), I indicated in his talk page that per WP:CIRCULAR they shouldn't use those, but he then placed "better source needed" instead of removing the circular references. He is doing a lot of work, which I praise, but I think using circular references is a no-no. What do you think? Thinker78 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: That's clearly not okay under WP:CIRCULAR. If the material in question isn't controversial, I would remove the bogus cite and {{cn}}-tag the material. If it is controversial, it should just be removed until properly sourced. Hopefully this is already old news and it's resolved. I was on wikibreak for a while and am just now catching up.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back! Thinker78 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
  2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
  3. Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
  4. The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
  5. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
  6. For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.
Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford Jr.[edit]

IMHO, the actual claim the Globe and Mail made is overstated by one or more editors who read far more into an "investigation" and a second editorial piece clearly labeled "opinion" than is warranted for the use of Wikipedia to make a claim beyond what the newspaper actually makes as a claim. I would ask you to note the carefully parsed language used by the newspaper, as opposed to the claim being sought in the BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: That seems like a reasonable concern. I may have overstated something, but I also went on a fairly long wikibreak and the issue seems stale now. Feel free to ping me again is there's more discussion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's an awful lot more tangled than all that. The G&M article itself became widely-reported news (and continues to be four years later) that has deeply affected peoples' perceptions of Ford, so it almost undoubtedly should be reported in the WP article (despite BLP concerns). A sticky problem is that many of the supporters want it not only included, but presented in the article so that it has the impression of being a fact (by placing it the "Early life" section, or in a section of its own). The most prominent POV-pusher has since been indeffed as an unrepententant sockmaster, but there are others still pushing it (including an admin), and inevitably will be more as we near the election in June. The RfC wasn't designed to deal with these issues, so a lot has been left up to ... creative interpretation of the "consensus". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like it's worth a second RfC. We SHOULD be covering it as a "live" controversy, but not choosing a side in it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominating cnote templates for merge[edit]

Moot: Got there too late, and it closed as "no consensus", but I would have supported the merge.

Hi! The {{cnote}} templates has been nominated for merging with the {{efn}}/{{notelist}} family of templates. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Move (company) draft[edit]

Hello, SMcCandlish. I never know when editors have "pings" turned on or not, so I just wanted to make sure you saw my message here to you regarding my proposed draft to replace the existing Move (company) article, which currently displays information mostly in the form of bullet points. I want to be respectful of your time, but you were very helpful with the Realtor.com article, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that the draft has been reviewed, so no need to revisit unless you're curious to do so. Thanks so much again for your input on this page and at Realtor.com, it was very much appreciated! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Inkian Jason: I was just taking a much-needed wikibreak; wasn't ignoring you on purpose. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash[edit]

 Done: Commented on 3 RfCs there, missed 2 others.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New collections
    • Alexander Street (expansion)
    • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
  • User Group
  • Global branches update
    • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
  • Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion?[edit]

Hello SMcCandlish. I stumbled across merger tags here, here, and here which all lead to a discussion now archived. Since you initiated the discussion, will you either remove the tags, reinstate the discussion, or complete the merger? I was inclined to remove the tags seeing no clear consensus in the archived discussion yet there was no opposition either. Since I had initially followed the discussion link to oppose the merge, I felt I may have been influenced by my own bias and decided to toss it back to you instead. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I hope all is well for you. It's always nice seeing you around, which I noticeably have not for a minute. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@John Cline: Busy doing other stuff, and sometimes need a break from this e-place anyway! I would leave the tags, because the cleanup won't likely happen otherwise, no one is likely to do it immediately but it is likely to be acted upon eventually, and they serve as pointers to overlapping material that people need to be aware of (a frequent source of policy/guideline disputation happens when people cite one line-item unaware of the effect of another on it). Frankly, I do most of the cleanup of this sort myself, like all the work I've done (and there's still more) to centralize our MoS material on titles of works, and on human names, and various other things. Sometimes it's very slow-going (like, can take a few years). There's no deadline. :-) PS: When a merge discussion of P&G material meets no opposition, that's generally a strong signal that it needs to happen, because people are more apt to object to such mergers than they are in any other material.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that; I understand and agree with all you have said. I am glad that I deferred to your judgement, and gladdest to see it in your reply.--John Cline (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
:-) Part of the reason it's slow going is that when merging this sort of stuff, the combined wording has to take into account pretty much every imaginable scenario for misinterpretation and willful gaming. And the end result is still likely to trigger some kind of a disagreement and a revert until a bunch of stuff gets hashed out. Kind of pain, which is I why I do it a little at a time (for my own temper and to not rock the policy-watching boat too much).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, anything larger than a ripple is a de facto tsunami in many of these parts, and I do appreciate your insight. I was going to ask you a question but imagined others would tug at your ear as well, so I posted it here instead, hoping you would see it anyway; in time. I really would like to hear your views on the matter when you have a free moment. Thanks again; for everything.--John Cline (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Most welcome. I replied on that thread you mentioned. The intro wording does need clarification, but I don't think the proposal for extended disambiguation of cover songs would fly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Missed you. But WP and life go on... Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Aw... Well, I need a break from this from time to time, or it starts feeling like a (very low-paying) job. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue[edit]

 Done: Already had commented on this one.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Blank lines[edit]

I was trying to follow the guidance on blank lines of MOS:INDENTGAP in an edit in the Pedro Perebal AfD talk but it didn't work. Could you tell me what went wrong and how can I add the blank lines to my wall of text following the guideline? Thinker78 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


There is a mop reserved in your name[edit]

Mop.png You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

I am certain that if you succeeded an RfA, you'd be an excellent administrator. It's possible that the quorum attending your RfA will fail to recognize your gifts, but I think it's worth the endeavor and hope you will give it a go. I understand if you decide against a run, but hope that you'll read the linked essay, and know that it does speak of you.--John Cline (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you do run I'd enthusiastically support you. But I'd actually advise against it because it might take away too much of the time that you use to work and add to valuable topics, research, and discussions. Sometimes when good editors become admins they fade away, and the encyclopedia is the worse for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • John, I appreciate the sentiment, but it would never happen. I don't kiss enough a[ss|rse], am curmudgeonly, and have a focus on WP:AT/WP:MOS. The combination of these generates a lot of "enemy"-styled posturing toward me, despite any peace offerings I make. Some of them have a lot of friends, and bear grudges deeply and for a very long time (over a decade now in many cases), which of course will turn into another e-mail canvassing farm against me. I've come to the conclusion that usually the only way to become an admin here is to go for it within the first two years or so, and to spend that period glad-handing people as much as possible, avoiding all controversy, and racking up AfD and other statistics. RfA doesn't care much about competence, experience, and institutional memory, but about how well you play political games to win the popularity contest. If you've been around long enough to irritate much of anyone (other than drive-by vandals and CoI pushers), you won't pass.

    I also don't want it, mostly for the reason Randy homed in on. I've seen what adminship does to too many productive editors, turning them into drama-mongering wannabe cops more interested in power- and class-based gamesmanship, or at best into well-intentioned admins mired in an endlessly cycling bureaucratic grind instead of actually improving the encyclopedic output. It's rare in my view for an admin to maintain a balance, and it looks like a tremendous amount of work and stress to do so successfully. I don't need stress and extra work, or drama. I was willing to run for ArbCom, because it's not day-in, day-out administrative drudgery, but limited spurts of conflict that really do need resolution, with a rule structure in place that prevents it turning into a psychodrama cellpool like AN/I is. I also ran for ArbCom because the body needs at least one non-admin on it, for balance. (I got more support than several who were elected – they simply got less opposition, motivated by the same reasons that I would be opposed at RfA.) But I don't need or want the mop, especially in the present environment in which it's used more like a weapon than a tool.

    I understand (and have been pretty forthright about) the fact that WP is undergoing a slow (even overdue) organizational lifecycle transition, in which rules and order and structure and procedures and enforcement of them are likely to be more necessary, as WP becomes a world-wide institution instead of a weird experiment. But I don't want to be in the HR, PR, or campus security departments. I have more on-point work to do here, when I have time for it. So, thank you again for the kind words, but it's just not a role for me. I was a professional activist for a long time, and I bring some of that to what I do here. I'm better as something vaguely analogous to a tenured professor who'll call the administration on their bullshit when it's necessary, but who's otherwise doing the research and editorial work I'm supposed to be here for.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad the "feedback request" bot decided to pop this on your page. I've wondered when seeing this bot at work, how are these notices not canvassing, and how does it choose? A brave and strange new world. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:FRS explains how it chooses (in short by picking randomly from pools of people interested in RfCs on particular topical ranges, and up to a limit per category or total). In actual operation, it's a little mysterious. I've set no limit for policy- or style-related RfCs, but it still does not notify me of all of them. [shrug].  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen that before, thanks for pointing it out and explaining it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
No prollem. A word of warning: it's easy to get sucked into doing little here other than RfCs. I had to dial it back a lot. I originally signed up for RfCs on everything of vague interest to me, with few limits, and it turned into a bit of a firehose. I'd leave for a day, find 10 RfC notices, and spend all my WP time on the RfCs. PS, in answer to a question I missed: It's not canvassing because the notices are neutral. FRS bot doesn't tell you how to respond, or leave notices only for people on a particular side, or only those with a vested interest in the page from prior edits; it just doesn't spam people with geography-related RfCs if they say they don't want them, and so on. The fact that it won't notify you of all RfCs in a given topic area even if you set it to unlimited is probably on purpose, to prevent an obsessive from hitting every single comics and manga (or whatever) RfC for a decade and coming to dominate the discourse in that whole swath of article categories.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of flags by number of colors[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of flags by number of colors. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess there really is no limit to how stupid a list can be. EEng 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
That's my initial reaction, too, though I wonder if there's a heraldry/vexillology rationale for such a list. I know from studying heraldry a little, half a lifetime ago, that the colors available and how they can be used are limited (in ways that vary between, e.g., English, French, and German heraldry). I'm skeptical this applies to flags, since they haven't been under thumb of the heraldry crowd for a century or so, and are more often created by design teams then voted on by the population of the place they're meant to represent.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Perebal[edit]

 Done

Your input is appreciated. Thinker78 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of the article Pedro Perebal[edit]

My article is gonna be deleted. *Sigh... Thinker78 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: "Been there, experienced that." It happens, and I feel your pain. I hope you understand I !voted as I did after thought and analysis, not for personal reasons, and not because I don't think the subject is interesting. I just decided a long time ago to stick to policy and put my personal interests or "how I would remake WP in my image" wishes aside. (Hell, if I could do as I wished, I would rewrite about 100 things in WP:MOS!)

If Perebal learns a bunch more languages and sets some kind of record in Guatemala, he'll get more coverage and will probably be notable. (Someone not notable today isn't necessarily forever non-notable.) I've learned not to create an article unless I have found a) an unmistakable claim of notability that is clearly encyclopedic, and b) a thick pile of sources, at least some of which are major publications outside the subject's home area. If I can't find any, odds are the page will get deleted. Unless the home area is a really big one: it is probably possible to write an article on a Chinese, Russian, Japanese, or Brazilian politician or popstar who has a lot of native-language coverage but none in English yet, because of the massive size of the countries, while it wouldn't be possible to do this with someone who's only covered in the "national" but small-circulation news of Papua New Guinea or Monaco. Guatemala is a borderline case, with a relevant population of about 9 mil (i.e., the population of New York City proper, though the NYC metro area is closure to 30 mil). As another comparison, that's about 9 times the size of the population of Delaware, and about the same as the populations of Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey (each, not collectively). You might try looking for more sources. Any chance he was mentioned in the Portuguese-language press in Brazil? In Spanish-language press in countries that border Guatemala? Maybe in a linguistics journal (unlikely, but one never knows)?

In my case, I lost a bunch of pool player bios; they're people who are US national-class players (which means they're lifelong mega-badasses at billiards, one of the most difficult things to master at a professional competition level), but they don't end up being notable in WP terms unless they have actual national titles under their belts. Being consistently around third or seventh or 13th best in the US isn't good enough (despite it being way, way more of a feat that getting one song into the top-10 pop charts, or landing a few movie or TV roles). I know one personally who shot up quickly in the WPBSA ranks, won a professional Most Improved Player Award, and for a couple of years was consistently in the top 10, and won some state and regional events but never a national title, and she wouldn't pass WP:N (especially now that she's no longer a pro player, and has gone into the family pool hall business). That kind of "sorry, not quite" analysis could change for a particular person, if they were covered in RS for other reasons, like starting a sports equipment line, or being arrested for murdering their spouse, or whatever. E.g., I got William A. Spinks to WP:GA level, though he was always hovering at the edge of greatness and never actually was a number-one at anything. He got notable for something else, which made him rich after he gave up trying to be a world champion. Though actually there was maybe enough in-depth press coverage of him as player (which is what I focused on) that he could have squeaked by here even if he hadn't co-invented cue "chalk". (I still need to return to my draft on the other co-inventor, who's actually more notable for something else, the invention of the electric heating coil. It's still weird to me that we don't have an article on him, and I keep meaning to finish mine.)

Anyway, what I've learned, in a nutshell, is to ask "In 100 years, will anyone still care?" To my chagrin, the answer is probably "yes" for B-movie actors and one-hit wonders in pop music, as it is for sports figures who actually win something, while it tends not to be for academics who don't make huge discoveries or get things named after them, nor for people doing academic pursuits like stuffing their brain with additional languages. Idea: Try writing an article on him for Spanish Wikipedia (and perhaps Portuguese, though I forget if they've split that one into Portugal and Brazilian editions; if so, use the latter). They will should be be more apt to accept something like Guatemala-only sourcing as sufficient. Others, working in those languages, might find additional (e.g. print) sources, and in time it might be enough to re-leverage him having an article here.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the cheer! I can see that you really are deep in afd guidance. Mr. Perebal had coverage in a few non-national sources like Honduras, an international Italian publication, BBC in Spanish and an interview in a Mexican morning show ( I had written those in the references to support gng, except the morning show for being a primary source). I tried an article in the Spanish Wikipedia but it fared worse: it actually got speedy deleted. Thinker78 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Thinker78:The fact that he was interviewed on a TV show in Mexico is potentially a GNG help, even if the content of the interview is primary. It could be included in the article by quoting from it; our readers would actually want to know what he says about his motivation and devotion, and it's a valid primary source for that, per WP:ABOUTSELF. The Honduran and Italian bits are worth keeping, but the coverage wasn't in-depth enough to help much in this case. Still, it's a start. If it's deleted, I would say to ask for a WP:REFUND to userspace to continue drafting, and check for new stuff about him periodically. Even one or two more non-trivial sources might be sufficient. Remember WP:There is no deadline. I have some drafts that are 10+ years old. Despite anti-draft ranting, we're not deleting drafts that actually have potential.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ununderstandable[edit]

Received opinion notwithstanding, it actually is. ;) Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough (though more often with a hyphen); I probably shouldn't have used "not a word", for the same reason that "irregardless isn't a word" isn't literally true. You'll find it in dictionaries, too, since it's attested. Rather: neither are words one would normally use in a register like this. (The quoted Jaspers use of the word in the dictionary material probably illustrates why; it's being used wryly as a funny word people aren't liable to take very seriously.) And it was redundant anyway; the two previous terms already had the concept covered.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries, the edit was fine. The edit comment triggered my inner grammar nazi, that's all. :D
What I don't understand, though, is where you get the idea that Karl Jaspers was joking when he called delusions ununderstandable ("unverständlich"). Paradoctor (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
More clearly: Eilan translated it as "ununderstandable" (a word missing from many dictionaries, in either spelling, but parseable with effort) to be amusing or point-making. What Jaspers meant would be better translated into regular English as "incomprehensible", a more straightforward, serious statement. "Un[-]understandable" isn't even found in the dictionary aggregator Dictionary.com. It's not one people aren't likely to recognize or think of as a proper word, but which they'll puzzle over for a moment, and roll around on their mental tongue. That's surely what Eilan wanted, to editorially imply not just a psychiatric challenge, but a deep disconnect between everyday reality and the reality tunnel inside the head of the schizophrenic. The word is kind of "crazy". And it's use is clever, in that "ununderstandable" takes some effort to be understandable. I'm reminded of Bilbo's "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve", near the start of The Lord of the Rings. The effect of such constructions is widely recognized as silly, ironic, playful, piss-taking, or otherwise light-hearted. English generally does not stack the same prefix or suffix, or use double negatives. If you say that your lawsuit, which was rejected at the trial court as illegitimate but accepted on appeal, was "held to be ilillegitimate" people understand that you're being wry and making light of the tedious and expensive legal struggle, or perhaps mocking the lower court (humor again, but pointed and at someone's expense), not just flatly stating that your case is legitimate. If tell you my mutt of a dog is rather non-nonpareil, you get that I'm playing with words (perhaps to mock the dog show crowd) and not just stating that my dog is unexceptional, which I could have done with a simpler construction that didn't imply snootiness on the part of the pedigree pushers. The WP material in question (even if it did need a third descriptor there) shouldn't use such a construction, since it projects a fun-taking opinion/stance by the writer, which may be appropriate in an editorial (and sometimes even a journal paper), but not in encyclopedic writing. That's probably a pointlessly long answer; I suspect you know and agree with all this already. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"Eilan translated it" No, she didn't. The term comes from the 1963 English language version of Allgemeine Psychopathology published by UCP. I doubt Eilan was born then.
"isn't even found in the dictionary aggregator Dictionary.com" scroll down a bit
"And it's use is clever, in that "ununderstandable" takes some effort to be understandable." I had no trouble at all. Even without "snootiness on the part of the pedigree pushers". Where did that come from?
"I suspect you know and agree" Imagine your surprise. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, whatever. I wasn't planning on researching the quoted bit in depth. I think that the intent of using that awkward word by whoever translated it is what I describe. Dictionary.com: fair enough; must have been a transient database error. I tried both spellings there and got no results; now I do. Your third point I don't understand [I'm resisting calling it un-understandable] since you're pulling unrelated material from two sections and running it together as if they're part of the same statement. My point (as to the first part) was that "ununderstandable" is a double-take word, which stops the reader to consider whether it's a typo. As to the second part, if you don't get that taking a fancy Frenchism that virtually no one really uses in English as a normal adjective, like nonpareil, and using it as one in a funky negation wouldn't probably be a commentary on the kind of people who would use such a word about their over-bred dogs, then I don't know what to tell you. [shrug]  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't get your reaction here. Maybe I am reading too much into your edit count, but I would expect that for someone with your experience, arguing with sources rather than your own idiodyncrasies would be second nature. If your argument were article content, I would have deleted it with a comment of "WP:PROVEIT, seems to be WP:OR". Since it is not, and this is just about an edit comment, I don't see much happiness arising from this for either of us. Have a nice weekend despite, see you around. Paradoctor (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just gotten weird and I think we've been talking past each other. I wanted to talk about "ununderstandable" being basically too strange for casual use here, and that general class of doubled-negative-prefix words being usually reserved for humorous and ironic purposes, while you wanted to talk about Jaspers' original wording and when it was translated (and to defend the word in question as more legit or general that I had been). I did err in not bothering to find out what those quotation details were, but it's because they were never important to what I was trying to convey. Whether "ununderstandable" is an odd and unusual choice and not encyclopedically appropriate, or is perfectly clear and everyday English we should use with impunity, is a subjective assessment to which PROVEIT doesn't apply for either of us. I was never trying to make the kind of argument one might advance at, say, Talk:Karl Jaspers about the content of that article, only about it not being helpful to use such a term in the context from which I removed it. My attempt at an analogy with "non-nonpareil" appears to have just fallen completely flat. So, simply a poor round of communication! Have a good weekend, too, and may next week be a model of clarity. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Indexes[edit]

Why do we have indexes on Wikipedia?

By purpose, indexes are identical to categories, in that both alphabetically list articles related to some topic. I looked at past discussions at talk pages related to indexes, and only found a small discussion and a request for comment (both here) about their existence. I see few arguments and they don't convince me. I will discuss some of them in the next paragraph.

Generally, categories aren't ported to offline versions of Wikipedia. I would propose some kind of "printworthiness" for categories like we have for redirects. Some editors were giving arguments for having list articles, but indexes are not list articles (nor set index articles for that matter). Readers don't care much about categories, but if that is so, they don't care about indexes either. It is true that categories can't contain red links, while indexes can; well I thought that indexes wouldn't contain red links, so I'm asking you for help. Some said at the RfC that indexes are more editor-oriented, and I believe that makes them unsuitable for mainspace. Another argument was that indexes can have related changes tracked; however, categories can do that as well. wumbolo ^^^ 00:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@2Wm: Honestly, I've never been a big fan of them. WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates provides that essentially redundant lists and categories (and navboxes) can exist simultaneously, since they're accessed differently, and appeal to different kinds of users, and have different features and capabilities (and limitations). The index pages are a form of WP:Stand-alone list, they're just not typical of list articles (they are articles, and they are lists, so they're list articles). If I recall correctly, indexes are intended to contain red-links, in that they're meant to be comprehensive of all major topics, even if we're missing some of them at present. I have no idea if there's a rubric for determining which ones to list. Maybe they go by WP:Wikipedia 1.0 categorizations? Beats me. I'm skeptical anyone's working on these pages any longer, other than very, very intermittently. Intent-wise, they're definitely not editor-oriented. I think the comment may have predicated by the fact that our readers don't seem to make much use of them, but a small number of editors were really, really into creating them for a while.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

I figured I'd reply to the part of your comment at RfA that you addressed to me, as it's not relevant to the RfA and so doesn't make sense to reply on the talk page. The answer is that no, I am not planning on running for RfA (as much as it would make my life easier), because I am acutely aware that I have negligible chances passing one. I came back from a year-long period of low activity (on a merely three-year-old account, at that) less than two months ago, my CSD and AfD records are both abysmal, and I have an otherwise very long history of doing reckless, stupid and/or poorly planned things. Nevertheless, I do, as always, appreciate feedback on my editing and behavior, and will keep your thoughts in mind going forward. I confess I was more irritated than I should have been when replying to Pldx1's comment. Thanks for your constructive criticism! Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My habit of making some substantial edit and then a bunch of minor edits to clean it up, like I just did here, would probably also draw considerable scrutiny. Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Compassionate727: It was the other editor who asked if you were considering an RfA and was cranky about your perceived tone. My post was the one bolstering your point about misleading XfD stats (and then I ran in another direction to make some other point, about NAC as a better model, I think). As for "negligible chances", see above on this page at #There is a mop reserved in your name, heh. PS, about "re-edits": In that case, I'd be doomed. My most common edit summary is "typo", for fixing my own material. I'm a bit "lysdexic", and often don't see the error even after four proofreadings.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You're right; he did say that, I apparently can't read. I think I'll write that one off to the dysfunctional dopamine-reward pathways, given the time of day, although I certainly do stupid things like that anyway. Thanks though, and happy editing. Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It's all good. I usually blame lack of coffee.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

 Declined

Hi there. Thanks for the support vote here. Would be grateful if you could take a moment to look at a similar requested move here. Thanks! — Film Fan 10:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: I would strongly advise not posting messages like this, per WP:CANVASS. It's okay to neutrally notify editors of related/similar discussions if you think they'd be interested, though doing so selectively tends to also lead to canvassing accusations. When you do it on the basis of how someone previously !voted, it's definitely canvassing. So, I'll sit this one out for propriety reasons.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Never come across this in all my years. I am indeed trying to get more votes for the correct outcome but think people can follow a discussion without being swayed by a personal message. — Film Fan 23:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
That's strange to me, but points out that the "WP has too many rules pages" complaint isn't easily dismissed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Film Fan: PS – the consensus-accepted approach is to seek broader input across the board rather than selectively, to make the eventual outcome have more support. It's the discussion that determines which answer is "correct" for WP. The typical method is to neutrally notify relevant talk pages. In this case, perhaps WT:FILM, WT:MOSFILM, WT:MOSTITLES, and WT:TRANSLATION. However, this isn't usually done (or we'd be drowning in such notices) for RMs, unless there's reason to think the case will have strong force as precedent, or it directly affects multiple articles already in being a big mass RM. In this case, I wouldn't notify more broadly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #007, 31 May 2018[edit]

Extended content

We have grown to 89 members.

This is the seventh issue of this newsletter. For previous issues, see our newsletter archive.

Welcome

A warm welcome to our nearly one dozen new members...

Our new members include:

Be sure to say "hi" and welcome them to the team.

The portal set has shrunk

There were 1515 portals, but now we have 1475, because we speedy deleted a bunch of incompleted portals that had been sitting around for ages, that were empty shells or had very little content. Because they were speedied, they can be rebuilt from scratch without acquiring approval from WP:DRV.

Maintenance runs on the portals set have begun

This is what we have been gearing up for: upgrading the portals en masse, using AWB.

More than half of the Associated Wikimedia sections have been converted to no longer use a subpage. This chore will probably be completed over the next week or two. Many thanks to the WikiGnome Squad, who have added an Associated Wikimedia section to the many geography-related portals that lacked one. The rest of the subjects await. :)

The next maintenance drive will be on the intro sections. Notices have gone out to the WikiProjects for which one or more portals fall within their subject scope. Once enough time has elapsed for them to respond (1 week), AWB processing of intro sections will begin.

Thank you, you

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your part in the RfC. I went back and reread much of it. I believe your enthusiasm played a major part in turning the tide on there. I'm proud of all of you.

Why reread that mess, you ask?

To harvest ideas, and to keep the problems that need to be fixed firmly in mind. But, also to keep in touch. See below...

Thank yous all around

I've contacted all of the other opposers of the RfC proposal to delete portals, to thank them for their support, and to assure them that their decision was not made in vain. I updated them on our activities, provided the link to the interviews about this project in the Signpost, pointed out our newsletter archive so they can keep up-to-date with what we are doing, and I invited them all to come and have a look-see at our operations (on our talk page).

Sockpuppet, and reverting his work

It so happened that one of our members was a sockpuppet: JLJ001. According to the admin who blocked him, he was a particularly tricky long term abuser. This is a weird situation, since the user was quite helpful. He will be missed.

This has been somewhat disruptive, because admins are doing routine deletions of the pages (portals, templates, etc.) he created, and reversion of his edits (I don't know if they will be reverting all of them). Please bear with them, as they are only doing what is best in the long run.

The following pages have been deleted by the admins so far, that I know of:

Automation so far, section by section...
Automatic article alerts is up and running

Automatic article alerts are now featured on the project page.

Some super out-of-date entries kept showing up on there, so posting it on the Project page was delayed. Thanks to Evad37 and AfroThundr for providing solutions on this one. Evad37 adjusted the workflow settings per Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing#Choosing workflows, to make sure only the appropriate page types show up. AfroThundr removed the tags from the old entries that caused them to keep showing up in the article alerts.

Other things that could use some automation

Noyster pointed out that it would be nice to automate the updating of the portals section at the Community bulletin board.

Another major component of the portal system is the main list of portals, at Portal:Contents/Portals. How would we go about automating the updating of that?

Please post your ideas on the WikiProject's talk page. Thank you.

Deletion discussion survivors

Keep in mind that we have already speedy deleted almost all of the nearly empty portals, which can be rebuilt without approval whenever it is convenient to do so. Other portals should be completed if at all possible rather than delete them through MfD (which requires approval from Deletion review to rebuild).

(Current deletion discussions are posted on our WikiProject page).

Portals needing repair
Wrapping up

There's still more, but it will have to wait until next issue.

Until then, see ya around the project.    — The Transhumanist   20:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: For recovering potentially salvageable portals because they were the work of the now-blocked sock, you could probably use undeletion requests to move them to your userspace and see if they're worth working on and restoring (if not, just {{db-user}}).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
That reminds me, I need to make a list of the admins in the Wikiproject. Thank you for the idea.    — The Transhumanist   21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

:-)[edit]

A wonderful edit summary. It brings a smile to my Friday - as does the yawning cat in your talk page notes message. Many thanks and I hope you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I mock my own typos pretty often. The cat's supposed be smirking! Heh. PS: there's some cat-face back story at #Cat face. I forget when I started using a cat; I'd been using various ASCII-art faces for years, and had a little stockpile of them somewhere ... User:SMcCandlish/sandbox4. Some turned out not to render unless you had a huge Unicode font.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah I see now. A smirk is as good as a yawn :-) Thanks for the link to the faces. Lots of fun. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk
Yeah, sometimes I had to take a break from article work, policy arguments, etc. E-doodles. PS: Did I detect a Monty Python reference?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:MOS:THE[edit]

Resolved: Was a mis-listing a WP:MFD, and should instead of have been taken to WP:RM/TR. I've undone the undiscussed moves that resulted in the underlying problem.

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:MOS:THE, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:MOS: and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:MOS:THE during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

B2C[edit]

Hi Stanton,

I just found interesting posts by you, mentioning me, at User_talk:Born2cycle. I don't see anything objectionable, but am yet to read it at leisure. You always have an interesting perspective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Hopefully not "interesting" as in the old Chinese curse. LOL. PS: Please don't take my observations there about a couple of your old posts as jabs at you; the point was to establish that the entire discussion was heated, and it wasn't "everyone was having a party and then B2c threw bombs into the room" (and I'm the first to admit some of my own heated talk-page posts at various RMs and other debates have been "imperfectly collegial").

The more I look into that case, the more disturbed I am by the outcome (even if the target can be a discomfort in the glutes sometimes). It's not right for an AE case, seeking DS that are explicitly inapplicable to the forums in question, to conclude with DS being applied, but not labeled DS, to institute a block and T-ban that were not authorized by any ArbCom case's DS, any ArbCom decision, or any community decision at ANI or elsewhere. They just literally came out of thin air. As soon as AE collectively realized it had no jurisdiction, this should have been dropped, or taken to either ANI or ArbCom (probably ARCA rather than RfArb).
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #008, 7 June 2018[edit]

The WikiProject now has 92 participants, including 16 admins.

Welcome

A warm welcome to the newest members of the team:

Be sure to say hi.

Congrats

Pbsouthwood has just gotten through the grueling RfA process to become a Wikipedia administrator. Be sure to congratulate him.

The reason he went for it was: "For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above. The amount of work is expected to keep me busy for some time. I am primarly a content creator and contributor to policy discussions, but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort zone."

New feature: Picture slideshow

Picture slideshow

Evad37 has figured out a way to let the user flip through pictures without purging the page. Purging is awkward because there is an intermediary confirmation screen that you have to click on "yes". In the new picture slideshow section, all you have to do is click on the > to go to the next picture or < to instantly show the previous feature. The feature also shuffles the pictures when the page is initiated, so that they are shown in a different order each time the user visits the page (or purges it).

It is featured in Portal:Sacramento, California. Check it out to the right.

Keep in mind that the feature is a beta version. Please share your comments on how to refine this feature, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Refining the Picture slideshow.

The one-page portal has been achieved

We now have a one-page portal design. It isn't fully automated, nor is it even fully semi-automated, as there are still some manually filled-in areas. But it no longer requires any subpages in portal space, and that is a huge improvement. For example, Portal:Sacramento, California utilizes the one-page design concept. While is employs heavy use of templates, it does not have any subpages of its own.

I commend you for your teamwork

This is the most cooperative team I've ever seen. With a strong spirit of working together to get an important job done. Kudos to you.

In conclusion...

There's more. A lot more. But it will have to wait until next issue, but you don't have to wait. See what's going on at the WikiProject's talk page.    — The Transhumanist   02:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Gurrrbbels[edit]

Contuing from where we left off at Help talk:IPA/English:

I also have had the same experience that, of the rhotacized form, I "definitely hear it sometimes, especially from people from the eastern half of the country, and it sounds weird to me". I should've made it clear that since these are all rare and learned words/names, I've only picked up their pronunciations later in life by imitating someone or (if lucky) a small group of speakers. In fact, I couldn't readily tell you my own pronunciations for them with perfect certainty, though this is my best guess: P[u]geot, G[œ]del and G[œ]bbels (maybe, in fact, [œ˞], though the strongly rhotacized form, [əɹ], I agree, sounds weird), Sch[oʊ>əɹ]nberg, M[oʊ]bius, ph[ʌ], and mil[ju>ʊ]. Incidentally, SMcCandlish, what do you think would be your more Western U.S. pronunciations of these same words? (We can take this to my talk page if you feel we're going to off the main track here.) Wolfdog (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I use the full German /ø/ for the German ones, due to German class, and this is surely rather pretentious. (I probably don't always do it when I'm not thinking about it; I've probably uttered something more like "I remember reading G[oʊ]del, Escher, Bach back in the day" more than once). Hearing "G[əɹ]tə" for Goete makes my skin crawl. For lack of knowing much about French and its slightly different sound for oe, I would be inclined to do French words as if German for that character string. A French-fluent friend said my attempts at French pronunciation were funny (in other ways). I wouldn't do this Germanization for a name like Schoenberg if the subject was North American, but use Sch[oʊ]nberg, as most of them do themselves. For milieu, I'm "broken": I picked up that word around age 10 from playing D&D (the Dungeon Master's Guide used it a lot) and still pronounce it mil[joʊ] which is what we all guessed was how to say it. Frankly, I have an unreasonable prejudice against spoken French and the French accent in English that I've never been able to explain (especially since it's supposed to be "sexy"; I'd much rather hear a Welsh or Scottish lass coo at me), so I generally don't try to put any Frenchification on French loanwords, other than, as with most Americans, my fillet ends in [ei] (I don't drop the r from foyer, though). Peugeot comes out of my mouth as just /pjuʒoʊ/, almost dismissively. >;-)

I took three years of Spanish, and lean toward proper pronunciation of snippets of it in English but without whacking the English ear too hard (e.g., I don't clip the consonants of all their aspiration, and do nothing to assimilated words and names like "San Francisco" and "burrito"). Anyway, I'm not a representative sample of much of anything, since I learned to read and write in England and had an Buckinhamshire accent until I was about 7, then the family moved back to 'Murica. I was habitually using -our/-re spellings well into high school, until a hostile "English" teacher started giving me bad grades for it. People have noticed before that my spelling here may wander depending on what ENGVAR is most apparent in the thread. And my parents has [US] Southern but different accents (California-influenced New Mexican, and deep, deep Mississippi; one said "lehsure time" the other "leesure", etc. I also worked hard on consciously losing much of my Southern inflection, and then I lived for a while in Ireland, then Canada. Have lived on both US coasts and in the middle for long stretches. And I watch at least as much British TV as American (and have watched lots of the former since I was teenager and we started getting Doctor Who and BBC nature shows on cable, finally – felt like coming come. And I tend to pick up aspects of the local pronunciation automatically and much faster than usual; e.g., I lost my British accent completely only about a month after moving back to the US, and in adulthood was often mistaken (only momentarily) for a local in Dublin after only about a month there). So, it's all a mixed bag in my case.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Forgot the ping, not that this is Big Serious Stuff. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow... You're a total mess, huh? Haha. That's what makes language interesting! I love these kinds of insights (almost literally "sights into others' linguistic inner world"). Thanks for taking the time to share!
I'm certainly with you on fillet and foyer.
I agree that I've kind of reacted against the stereotype of French being sexy or romantic, and I now even enjoy pushing my Francophone friends' buttons by reminding them that it's the most divergent and "bizarre" of Latin's little children languages (especially pronunciationwise). Wolfdog (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the fact that it's the most corrupted from Latin, in most ways, of all the Romance languages has something to do with it for me, but part of it's also just the laziness of it – all the ending-dropping, and the mid-word dropping (especially of s, e.g. Étienne, étoile, étrange). And all that nasalization. I joke-not-joking that it's Vulgar Latin turned really, really vulgar by Norse invaders and their commingling Gaulish vassals. Should've stuck with Gothic and Norse! "Qu'est-ce que c'est?" is pretty much unforgivable: six words squeezed to three syllables at most, and crazily redundant ('What is this that this is?') to ask 'What's this?'. Why not just *Qu'est ce?

But in the end, I dunno. Maybe what really happened is I had a mean French nanny and have repressed the memory. Ha ha.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement for the record[edit]

After two-years of re-litigation of a topic ban, another editor was short-term blocked (against my urging to not block), and their topic ban was kept in place, and a new one-way interaction ban imposed against making further wild accusations against me [25] (I'm on this editor's dirt-list for having provided much of the evidence that resulted in the topic ban, though I did not open that case myself). This was unfortunate enough, though the TBAN and the IBAN are surely necessary, since the editor used every appeal venue to focus on me and my nefarious motives and wicked deeds rather than the reason the community, its admins, and its arbitrators were imposing sanctions the other direction.

Rather than reflect on what led to this and how to eventually get out from under this cloud, the editor simply resumed accusations, and repeatedly claimed to be in fear of their life or safety because I might "come after" them to make a physical assault and (I couldn't make this up – see diffs below) that I'd done so before, and also predicted that I would use the user's own talk page to "gravedance" and slander them while they were away, and that the topic ban could somehow result in this editor being sued or arrested (for what, I don't know): [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] This string of odd aspersions – interrupted with multiple admins' warnings to no avail – promptly resulted in an indefinite block with talk-page access revoked [32].

I have no interaction with this person off-site, not even by the "Email this user" feature, and I don't roll that way on-site. Nor can anyone, even if they wanted to; let's quote directly from WP:Banning policy:

It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor.

We have not interacted on-site for almost a year, other than that over the last couple of days I've responded to accusations (about which I was not notified as required) made by this party at WP:AE in the latest in a long-series of noticeboard actions relating to this this user. The entire situation is depressing, because the editor is productive outside of the topic-banned area, which I have been saying all along at the dozen or so noticeboard actions over the last 4 years about this editor and that topic.

The few things I've left at this user's talk page between the original topic ban stuff and when I stopped posting there at all, last year, have been conciliatory. They were rebuffed with hostility despite being direct responses to that editor's own demands. It's the furthest thing from stalking/hounding/harassment. Whether I resent the implication is immaterial (I'm not very easily offended); but I categorically deny it, and all the evidence presented in all these noticeboard actions makes it clear they are baseless accusations. If I were having any contact with this person off site, through some means, I would expect ArbCom to be made aware of it within the hour and to act on it harshly.

I just want the community to be clear that I have no interest in any form of interaction (on-site or off-site) with this user (though I actually support an un-block after some time for reflection, because the TBAN/IBAN combination should prevent any further disruption). I've made this statement because any random person looking into the editor's most recent block is going to see all these evidence-free but very serious accusations, and I'm arguably not in a position to refute them on the page where they appeared. Nor do they quite appear to qualify for WP:Oversight, though maybe for WP:Revision deletion, about which I'm enquiring.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments thereon[edit]

@Oshwah: Any administravitorialistic verdict on those diffs? I would as soon have them go away, and my post above just get immediately stuffed into an archive page as old news.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I showed them to an oversighter, and we both agreed that they're not eligible for suppression or rev del. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Very well. I would at least think that the one that implies I've physically assaulted this person before would be RevDel'able. But I guess the rants are absurd enough on their face.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If anything, it demonstrates this user's behavior and can be scrutinized by the community if needed in the future. I don't see this being used against you at all - it clearly isn't true. I've had users call me crazy weird things and accuse me of ridiculous things like this numerous times. I wouldn't worry about it :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If a character reference is of any use here, I just want to say that I have never felt that Sandy McCandlish might stalk and attack me. EEng 23:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    @EEng: That's just because you've haven't been trying to revert my obsessive original research about the Bolsheviks' connections to Pokémon. ;-P  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    I'm a bit frightened that anyone could even concieve of such a connection... humor, humor! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    On an actually serious note, I once did an essay on The Lion King as conservative propaganda. A generation later, I stand by it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    At the opposite end of the spectrum - my high school English teacher was amazed to discover that Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian Revolution. She swore that she did not know that before I did a book report on the book... given her general level of clue... I can actually believe it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Wow. Just wow. Secondary-school credentials don't take much. I had a 9th-grade English teacher who was convinced "spatial" was pronounced spatt-ee-ull. I kid you not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I was bemused at how that user's behavior went off the rails after the block. I had some private correspondence with them in which I encouraged them to find a way forward that would be acceptable to the community. Unfortunately I believe they saw it as a request to "plead guilty" even though they didn't perceive any issues with their behavior over time. --Laser brain (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Predictable, given everything the user said in all these rounds of appeals. They're convinced (or pretend to be convinced – many of us are sure this is an act) that any concession to anything is a concession to everything, including to things already retracted, and that no one will tell her what she's actually done wrong or what she should do/say to get out from under the cloud, despite having been told all of these things about 100 times now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to self: Much of the circular-argument venting by the editor in question has been predicated on the idea that I'd somehow violated AE or ArbCom rules about evidence presentation and length limits, by letting AE and ARBCOM know about an incompletely-prepared and -pruned evidence pile I'd amassed in a userspace page (with the intent of eventually using it in a WP:RFARB, which ended up not being necessary because someone else pre-emptively took the same user to WP:AE). Here is further proof that's not the case. ArbCom almost unanimously accepted a case against an admin/crat (who resigned under a cloud in response, and likely would have had the tools removed if they had not), after a pointer to precisely the same kind of long diff pile that was not yet ready for the Evidence phase of that case.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Undo to your recent edit[edit]

Resolved

Sorry about that, accidentally clicked undo when i meant to click thanks! XD

Have redone the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymorph self (talkcontribs) 17:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's all good. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Goliath[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goliath. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Fake MoS shortcuts[edit]

At Redirects for discussion a rather new editor is claiming shortcuts with the MoS acronym routinely link to help pages are other Wikipedia pages that are not part of our policies or guidelines. Do we normally mislead our editors like this..... in the middle of a debate we don't link a fake MOS shortcuts thus implying that it's a guideline when it's not do we?--Moxy (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: It's probably not cool. Every "MOS:" (or – if we end up keeping them – "MoS:" or "Mos:") shortcut should go to an "Wikipedia:Manual of Style[/...]" page, with few potential exceptions. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
  1. Draft MoS pages that are in actual use but haven't been completed in some part of them and still lack a formal WP:PROPOSAL process. The two I know of are MOS:GLOSSARIES and MOS:ORGANISMS, both in active use as if guidelines for over 5 years.
  2. A page that is no longer part of MoS but is an actual guideline; this can happen because of a rename, split, or merge (e.g. WP:SAL is a combined style and content guideline, and only one section of it part of MOS; and MOS:INFOBOX needs to be split into a content guideline on infoboxes, and small section in the main MoS page on the few bits in MOS:INFOBOX that are actually style matters, since most if it's content not style).
  3. Perhaps to a part of WP:AT or a naming conventions page, or maybe even a "Help:" page – if something is often mistaken for MoS material, and MoS itself [or a subpage thereof] has no good link target for the shortcut. However, this is better handled by finding or making such a target, and using a hatnote to point to the non-MoS page that's also relevant.
  4. Maybe a WP:PROJPAGE that is a wikiproject's style essay – as long as it doesn't actually claim to be part of MoS or a guideline, and isn't "advertising" the MoS shorcut, and MoS itself has no good target for the redirect.
That fourth one is really iffy, actually, as it can still be misleading. Ultimately, probably all the "MOS:" shortcuts would go to MoS pages, because that makes sense and it's what the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace was authorized for by community consensus.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science[edit]

 Done

The feedbag request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Nom nom, feedback, nom nom nom ...  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor[edit]

Disregard: I was already involved in this one, and the one before it, and the side-matter of a CoI edit request.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Classical music readers[edit]

I think that removing (Chopin) from Chopin waltzes is a bit over legalistic. We remove band names because pop editors get furious if another band has the same song, and see pop songs as a competition for Top 10 placing, but classical music readers aren't like that. They are pluralistic non-competetive human beings and can accept that waltzes were written by different composers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Not sure I care much, as long as a) we end up with a consistent system at least within the classical category, and b) we aren't using 3–4 disambiguations per title just because some early classical-focused writers at WP didn't understand our titling system and tried to make every article title serve the descriptive/defining purpose of an entire lead section. This may need to be cleaned up in stages. I actually expected the RM in question to fail as an RM per se, but to serve as a pot in which to stir some ideas about which way to take it all later, and it's serving that purpose. Wouldn't be the first time. See, e.g., my doomed mass-decapitalization of all dance-related article titles at once about two years ago, which teased out which ones (on what grounds) might require separate RMs; the "generic" ones are now uncontroversially moving to lower-case in batches, while the ones people are likely to squabble about, predicated on various specialized-style fallacy excuses, can be taken one at a time later.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Well they like it, why not. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no problems with titles, real names that is. Waltz, however, is no title but generic, and waltzes were written by several composers, and some of those used op. to distinguish, while others perhaps a key, and some readers will know the same piece by key, others by op. number. Is it really unbearable to have all three dabs (key, number, composer) in a title, to help readers finding a piece? Another thing worth considering is the number before Waltz (or whatever), which may be 16 or 3. Should that count as part of any title? Four Last Songs, yes, that's a well-known group, and published as such, but who will know how many normally? Have you looked at Mozart's masses, with all their numbers and nicknames (example: Mass in C major, K. 167 "in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis"), and many in C major ;) - There was a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
We already have procedures for this; classical isn't a uniquely different case. Settle on a disambiguation system, not three systems at once in the same title (unless the first and the second still produce ambiguity). We have WP:CONCISE for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Compositions typically have an infobox, unless an author notices a year later ;) - When an article is called just Sixteen Waltzes, will the infobox make a search function know it's by Brahms, and show that (but none by Chopin) when looking for "Brahms waltz"? - Anyway, going to add one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like The Reckoning is already in the post-production phase. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the law essay only afterwards ;) - the day I have Nazi on the Main page. Seriously: I don't think infobox wars exist (possibly never existed, - perhaps before my time), but the concept seems attractive to some. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Jones[edit]

Disregard: No need; it's already a WP:SNOWBALL.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #009, 15 June 2018[edit]

(Article slideshow prototype)
Selected animals

Don't mind that box to the right. We'll be talking about that later, below.

Almost done...

With the portals upgrades?

No. :)

What is almost done is the updating of the main list of portals!

There are 23 portals left to be listed.

Kudos to the WikiGnome Squadron, for spearheading this.

Once it is fully updated, we need to keep it up to date. When you complete a portal, remember to add it to Portal:Contents/Portals.

Concerning portal upgrades, we are working on those section-by-section...

Associated Wikimedia section conversion task complete

The Associated Wikimedia sections of the entire set of portals have been upgraded. These are now handled on each portal base page (bypassing the previously used corresponding subpages), using the {{Wikimedia for portals}} template rather than reiterated copied/pasted code.

So, to be more accurate on reporting upgrade progress, that's one section down (for the whole set of portals), with (about) nine sections to go. (Skipping curated portals, regarding custom content sections, of course).

Further section conversions (using AWB)

Work is underway on converting Portals' introduction sections, and the categories sections.

If you would like to help, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Upgrade introduction sections and Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB task: Convert category sections

Further section conversions (by hand)

Work has also started with converting selected picture sections to picture slideshow sections. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Install picture slideshows.

Quality rating system for portals under development

Currently, there is no quality rating for portals: in the Portals WikiProject box on each portals' talk page, it just says "Portal". But times are a changin'. Quality assessment is on the way, and you can help. See the discussion.

What's coming: excerpt slideshows

Evad37 has figured out a way to apply the picture slideshow feature to displaying article excerpts (now you can check out the provided box above). :) This allows us to bypass page purging to see the next selection, and you can even click through them rather quickly. Currently, the wikicode for doing this for article excerpts is a bit eye-boggling, and so we are looking into simplifying it. A streamlined version may be just around the corner.

Note that this is a prototype, not ready for widespread use. Click on the box in between the lesser than and greater than signs, to see what I mean. It was meant for pictures, and so the thumbnail feature doesn't apply to article prose very well. I've presented it even though it isn't ready, to show the direction portal development is heading. See the discussion.

Wow

I'm amazed at how rapidly portals are evolving. And we're still within a single generation of portal technological evolution. Imagine what they might be in 2 or 3 more generations of developments. Pretty soon, portals will be able to shake your hand. :)    — The Transhumanist   11:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal guidelines-related...[edit]

 Done

You mentioned you were interested in content guidelines for Portals.

I thought you might be interested in knowing that some issues pertaining to this are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/General#Proposed new quality class assessments.

I'd be interested in reading your ideas about what constitutes a quality portal. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   09:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some general-overview comments and some specifically about MOS:PORTALS.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

Fixed

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Humane Society of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constrictor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WUPV[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WUPV. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth Haplography?[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SMcCandlish. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
Message added 13:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

moe. (band) page move[edit]

Resolved

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You should not canvass editors you think will be receptive to your preference. (And I'm not; I would happily see this article move to normal-English names like K. D. Lang.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

  • #1Bib1Ref
  • New partners
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
  • Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you reverse your undiscussed actions[edit]

Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/FAQ. The capitalisation is controversial and your move reflects neither the current editorial consensus on sources, nor past discussions. It was also undiscussed. You've reverted another editor without raising it first at the appropriate talk page. [2009, I apologise]. Yes the article is a mess, but no, not a good move; and not done in a good way. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:ISMCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY policy would disagree (thus so would WP:CONLEVEL policy). If you're sure all those policies and guidelines would be overruled somehow to continue over-capitalizing – against the very guideline intended prevent exactly this kind of over-capitalization – feel free to list it WP:RM/TR for reversion, and I'll just open a regular RM about it. PS: I agree "the capitalisation is controversial"; it would have to be, given that we have multiple guidelines saying to not do that with words like "communism", so removing the capitalisation is the correct course of action. Tiny WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cliques do not get to make up their own "rules" in FAQs to hold other editors at bay; see also WP:OWN and WP:EDITING policies (and WP:VESTED, a broader community interpretation of their applicability).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Your actions are being discussed on the article talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Rather than argue about it, I've simply opened the RM discussion, since the article needs to stop using the biased word "regimes" in its title, too. There's no point, per WP:Common sense and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, in temporarily reverting one title to another when both of them are WP:NPOV violations.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It gets worse, it should never have survived its AFDs. Given the amount of heat over light the page has produced, it isn't BUREAUCRACY, so much as "I know what is about to happen anyway, so ought to do it myself because I'm not going to push for an outcome or be emotionally engaged." Fifelfoo (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree your AfD assessment, but I think the core content has developed enough that much of it is salvageable if split into, e.g. Mass killings by the Soviet Union, etc. (or something like that; "under the Soviet government", whatever). As for whether the gladiatorial pit going on over there want to run around screaming and hacking because I changed a character, I really don't care. RM is a site-wide process for a reason (namely, to break "local consensus" stonewalls), and this needed an RM anyway because of the PoV title, capitalization aside.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Continued appreciation[edit]

Even though our exchange at Talk:Ellipsis degenerated into fruitless head-butting, please be aware that, as a reader, editor, and monetary contributor to Wikipedia, I am grateful for your many contributions, including your advice, in December 2017, concerning my edits to Dash. — Peter Brown (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown: Thanks, and it's all good! If come across as a forceful arguer, please don't take it personally. It's just a habit developed from a decade-plus as a professional activist. I don't always successfully moderate it here, though I'm careful to not go ad hominem on people. I try to be critical of arguments and rationales not individuals; in a month or 6 or 12 no one will care or remember about most of this stuff, anyway. On that particular matter, the reason I'm being adamant about it is that if we make "use the same divergent style as these sources" exceptions in one case, people will demand it in every case they have a personal interest in. We've learned that the hard way. We would almost certainly have tens of thousands more articles (and more B-class or better articles) if all the time and energy people spend fighting about style were spent on developing content and just following the style guide. The entire problem with any style manual and article title scheme (at any publisher) is that it is basically impossible for any line item in it to have agreement from 100% of people, nor for any one person to agree 100% with every line item. Consequently – and especially at a site where all contributors feel empowered to "make their mark" – there will inevitably be attempts to change the spec to suit someone's preferences. If I had my own way, I would have changed at least 50 things in MoS and related pages (AT, naming conventions); but I don't get my way, and over time I've seen that the value in MoS isn't in being "correct" (a subjective notion in a language with no official standards) but in being stable and applied consistently. It gives readers a more seamless experience across the site, and it eliminates the majority of editor-on-editor style fighting. Style matters are mostly arbitrary.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/English[edit]

Disregard: I've already been in the thick of that one.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we actually recognize Maltese English as a variety for articles?[edit]

[33] EEng 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely not. It's like Jamaican English, etc. There's not formal, written register that is distinct from general British/Commonwealth English. I truly fucking hate all these WP:OWN-ish "ENGVAR stamp" templates people are making up and sticking on articles they want to "police" to contain their favored local colloquialisms. I've tried to resolve it twice, both cases with "no consensus", so will have to keep at it. I may just try TfDing several of the templates directly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, then you're needed over at the talk page, and don't call me Shirley. EEng 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop taking amphetamines."  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the much needed laugh...[edit]

Here. I almost snorted Diet Coke all over the table. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, I was tempted. You know what an "RFTM, dude" I'm capable of posting. >;-) But I actually just went thru this sort of thing with two others yesterday and it gets a bit tedious. Plus I'm sure it's tedious for to see for everyone who already understands this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Look at SMC, growing some self-control. Or some laziness. ;) --Izno (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Or it could just be a crafty part of my sinister machinations.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously you just sneakily infested me with it... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to The Cabal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quantico (season 3)[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quantico (season 3). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Full dates[edit]

I probably don't have the time/attention span to start an RFC... GiantSnowman 07:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I opened a thread (though not an RfC, at least not yet) at WT:MOSBIO.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed, many thanks! GiantSnowman 13:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
NP. The "someone" wasn't meant to be cagey; I've just learned from WP:ARBATC to avoid any show of "personalizing style disputes". The proposal stands on its own merits regardless whose idea it was.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Fixed

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of fictional cats in literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mouser
Sharking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pool shark

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice[edit]

I think I'm OK at not addressing the contributor (most of the time) - but what I am really need to learn is how to keep things short, to the point, and to cut off reply loops - reply once or at most twice.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a problem in that area, too. Maybe most of us do. I think WP:SYSTEMGAMING types exploit this human behavior quirk on purpose. It's why we have WP:IDHT, but there's not actually an enforcement mechanism, really, against someone employing proof by assertion and argumentum ad nauseam unless and until it just rises to a generalized WP:DE / WP:TE level. Consequently, people trying to just WP:WIN have a marked tendency to recycle the same argument over and over as if no one addressed it, and to ignore refutations or straw man them, and do whatever else it takes to never budge on their anti-consensus position. It's unfortunate, but if we haven't resolved it by 2018, we probably never will.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Hatnote inline[edit]

Template:Hatnote inline has been nominated for merging with Template:Hatnote. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Cause[edit]

Palm slap to my own forehead. Great correction, I was rushed and missed it as the top line. Thanks. Squatch347 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I was the one who missed argument from fallacy right at the top of the page. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Now with "effect" vs "affect" I think I might be going senile. (It also means you are in the lead with only 1 mistake, I've now got two ;-)) Again, thank you for the catch! Squatch347 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I thought that one was my error.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah's Ark[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah's Ark. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS Titles[edit]

 Done: Also cleaned up the article and some related ones like Ataman, Hauptmann, and Kosh otaman.

There's a discussion at WP:Main_Page/Errors you could probably shed some light on regarding the capitalization of Hetman. My reading (which I freely admit isnt something I have indepth knowledge) of the MOS is that as it is used in the OTD blurb for tomorrow it shouldnt be capitalized, and that the article itself has over-capitalized it in places. Your opinion would be welcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Confirmed I was reading the MOS page correctly as well, which is always good to know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
And that's one of the most difficult aspects for some people, e.g. the difference between "Gerald Ford was President of the United States" and "Gerald Ford was a president of the United States". People just see "but I wanna capitalize!", and don't see "this is a title of office, that is a category, and they just happen to share most of the same characters".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation arbitration amendment request declined[edit]

Resolved: Yes, that was going to be the clear outcome by the end of the first day. :-/  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish. The Article titles and capitalisation arbitration amendment request filed 21 June 2018 has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #010, 30 June 2018[edit]

We've grown to 94 participants.

A warm welcome to dcljr and Kpgjhpjm.

Rating system for portals

We are in the process of developing a rating system specifically for portals, as the quality assessment scheme for articles does not apply to portals. It is coming along nicely. Your input would be very helpful. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/General#Proposed new quality class assessments.

Better than a barnstar

One of our participants got involved with this WikiProject through interest in how the new generation of portals would be handled in WP's MOS (Manual of Style). It didn't take long before he got sucked in deeper. This has given him an opportunity to look around, and so, he has made an assessment of this WikiProject's operations:

I'm quite frankly really impressed and inspired by what's happening here. If you'd asked me a year ago if I thought portals should just be scrapped as a failed, dragged-out experiment, I would have said "yes". This planning and the progress toward making it all practical is exemplary of the wiki spirit, in particular of a happy service-to-readers puppy properly wagging its technological and editorial tail instead of the other way around, and without "drama". It's also one of the few examples I've seen in a long time of a new wikiproject actually doing something useful and fomenting constructive activity (instead of acting as a barrier to participation, and a canvassing/ownership farm for PoV pushers). Kudos all around. — SMcCandlish

Congratulations, everyone. Keep up the great work.

Slideshow development

We've run into a glitch with slideshows: they don't work on mobile devices.

Initially, we will need to explore options that allow portals to have slideshows without adversely affecting mobile viewers. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Mobile view support.

Eventually, we may need another way to do slideshows. If we do go this route, and I don't see why we wouldn't, then (user configurable) automatic slideshows also become a possibility.

TemplateStyles RfC passed

Once implemented, this will allow editors to create and edit cascading style sheets for use with templates. This will expand what we can do with portals. For more detail, see mw:Extension:TemplateStyles and Wikipedia:TemplateStyles.

Automation effort

We've run into an obstacle using Lua-based selective transclusion: Lua is incapable (on Wikipedia) of reading in article names from categories. Because of this, we'll need to seek other approaches for fully automating the Selected article section. We are exploring sources other than categories, and other technologies besides Lua.

Speaking of using other sources, the template {{Transclude list item excerpt}} collects list items from a specified page, or from a section of that page, and transcludes the lead from a randomly selected link from that list. Courtesy of Certes. So, if you use this in a portal, and if the template specifies a page or section serviced by JL-Bot, you've now got yourself an automatically updated section in the portal. JL-Bot provides links to featured content and good articles, by subject.

What is "fully automated"? When you create a portal using a creation template, and the portal works thereafter without editor intervention, the portal is fully automated. That is, the portal is supported by features that fetch new content. If you have to add new article names every so often for it to display new content, then it is only semi-automated.

Currently, the Selected article section is semi-automated, because it requires that an editor supplies the names of the various articles for which excerpts are (automatically) displayed. For examples, look at the wikisource code of Portal:Reptiles, Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization, and Portal:Reference works.

So far, 3 sections are fully automatable: the introduction section, the categories section, and the Associated Wikimedia section.

Where is all this heading?

Henry.

Or some other name.

Eventually, the portal department will be a software program. And we won't have to do anything (unless we want to). Not even tell it what portals to create (unless we want to). It will just do it all (plus whatever else we want it to do). And we will of course give it good manners, and a name.

But, that is a few years off.

Until then, building portals is still (partially) up to us.    — The Transhumanist   13:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milwaukee Bucks[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milwaukee Bucks. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Odd disconnect[edit]

Fixed

There's an oddity in the {{Alexandre Dumas}} template, which shows the visible title fine, and how it appears on the Alexandre Dumas page. You broke Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Damn, my vandalism got caught! It was the new-ish requirement to add |nocat=y to the {{lang}} template when it's used inside a container like a link, an image caption, etc. Pain in the butt. I guess it's an okay trade-off, given the other improvements (e.g. auto-italicization of foreignisms in Latin scripts). I want to see if there's some way to get around this problem. I note that collapsible navboxes have a way to detect the presence of more of them on the same page and auto-collapse when several are present. I would think that the same technique could be used to detect whether a category has already been applied or at least whether the same template is already in use on the page. Also thought of a more robust bot solution; have raised this issue at Template talk:Lang.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 23:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comma-Jr. again[edit]

PS: I see you're back on the warpath for "comma-Jr." I'm trying not to be too harsh about this, but it's really getting tiresome, especially now that you're trying to inject the comma into names that don't use it, e.g. at James Gordon Jr.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Your tech post lost me early on. Tech and myself quit speaking to each other long ago. Nope, not me on warpath. I'm not the editor insisting on keeping the comma off of fictional names, and on the Gordon page (editors are popping into a new comma skirmish's elsewhere too) the wait now is to see if any of our comic wikiproject editors can say if James Gordon, Jr. was presented in the comics with a comma or without. Yes, tiresome, because I thought it was settled long ago that MOS:JR is for biographical naming, not fictional names, which was the last and safe refuge of the comma. So will see what the experts say about the Gordon name. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't care if someone (even lots of someones) used to use a comma in that name; RS are not consistent on it, and the publisher of the Gordon comic doesn't do it, so that's the end of it. Your idea that "fiction = gets a comma" is nonsense that you made up. So it is "MOS:JR is for real biography only"; you're confusing "doesn't apply to spelling of titles of published works when they consistently include the comma" for "never applies to anything but bios". It's just not true. The only comma-Jr. disputations I've encountered in months are the ones you are generating. We also don't care what the comics project editors (I am one!) in particular want; we have site-wide guidelines for the specific purpose of stopping the bifurcation of (and fighting over) style on a topical basis. And, "the last and safe refuge of the comma" is clear demonstration that this is a warpath; you're right back on the same WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY campaign to "correct" Wikipedia and "save" the "comma-Jr." style.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope, Dicklyon is pushing this one by objecting to the name change-back which shouldn't have been moved in the first place. But that needs further input of information. More serious is the discussion at the Steamboat Bill, Jr. talk page, where it seems you and others want to remove the comma from the film title itself (correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I'm mistaken on that). Characters with the ", Jr.", it seems like that issue will have to be discussed somewhere to settle the question, but film titles being allowed to contain the comma are certainly a finished topic, no? Enough for today in either case. You are a comic project editor, that's cool. My editing on comics has tended to be just italic runs. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You're already starting the WP:IDHT stuff, right off the bat. If the publisher doesn't use "James Gordon Jr." and the RS don't consistently impose the comma, then WP doesn't either. The attempt to move the article to a comma version is tendentious "give me comma-Jr. or give me death" nonsense, trying to impose it where even the copyright holder doesn't put it. It's ass-backwards. The Steamboat case shouldn't have the comma, because a) the majority of the copyright holder's own marketing materials didn't use it, and RS that discuss the film don't consistently use it. Same standard we'd apply to anything else. This has been explained to you, today alone, on four different pages.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

 Done: I ended up WP:SNOW closing that one.

Hi. I noticed your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 2#Category:Anatolian peoples. There is a related discussion here which might be of interest to you. Krakkos (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Will check it out. Thanks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Geographic Nav boxes[edit]

Hello. You once commented on the use of Geographic Nav boxes on the [Pico Union, Los Angeles] talk page.

There is a user who insists on adding them, writing on my talk page: "Hi. I would appreciate your cooperation in retaining the geographic boxes in the logical place where they belong; that is, under Geography. They are not WP:Navboxes as much as they are indicators of where the communities exist in relation to others."

I have once again removed the box from the Sylmar, Los Angeles page. If you could perhaps provide your opinion on the Sylmar Talk page, it would be appreciated. Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This template is for adjacent communities only. Deets at the article talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

{{Tag}}[edit]

Hello SMcCandlish. Your recent edits to Template:Tag are certainly nice improvements. It happens that I was in the midst of working up some coding for an edit request that is now completely broken. I'm not complaining, and will re-work it soon enough, if needed. I thought maybe I could tell you about it, and maybe it's something you could do very easily. It would actually be very appreciated. Right now, {{tag|!--|content=comment}} renders as <!--comment--> where it should, IMHO, render as <!-- comment -->. I had come as far as Template talk:Tag#Template-protected edit request on 29 June 2018 indicates, in case it matters. So if you can actually fix that, with ease, I am asking if you will. If you don't want to do it, that is also fine, I really don't mind re-working it. I enjoy editing templates, but it's not something that I would call easy to do, I'm hoping that it is for you? based on the changes you recently made, I am definitely impressed with the finished product. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@John Cline: Before I dig into it, I'm not sure if you're saying a) my change invalidated some of what you're trying to do in earlier work/requests (i.e., broke something); b) my blowing away of the template sandbox to test this clobbered your in-progress work; or c) it's just unrelated and you're asking because I'm active and know that template. In the interim, I'll go look at what you pointed me to.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Quick test 1: <!--comment-->
Quick test 2: <!--comment-->
Quick test 3: <!-- comment -->
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
That's the results I expected; 1 is correct because we didn't tell it to put any spaces there. 2 is lame and annoying, but predictable, due to how our templating language works. There might be some kind of "whitespace preservation wrapper" that can be used to force it to not trim off the whitespace from the submitted parameter; I'm not sure if that happens upon submission or upon receipt of the input. 3 works exactly as expected, but is of course a wee bit tedious.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Everything you did looks great, and seems to work great. I think it would just mean that I had to modify the coding I had worked up, which I wanted to look at more thoroughly anyway (that's why I placed it on hold), I am not calling a foul in any way. I am only throwing it out there that your skills and knowledge of the template appear to be far ahead of my own, and it may be something that you see as quite easy; which I say, please do. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if you are already finished doing it. And if you don't want to fool with it, for any reason, it's no problem at all, I don't mind doing it. It just takes me a while to get it done, but that's half the fun. I appreciate you very much and don't mind saying so. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to see if we have some kind of magicword for "preserve whitespace". So many templates have converted to Lua now that the ones I'm checking that do that are no longer in Mediawiki code. Maybe there's a module for doing this.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@John Cline:. No dice so far. On the sandbox page, I put in the 2017 version, saved that; then reverted to your last one. So there's a clean diff between them. (And it's presuming that the code you were working on in the sandbox was only your changes against the 2017 version, i.e. against the version I just added the |link= parameter to). That said, I don't think this is the approach to take, since it would force whitespace where none was submitted in the input, and thus produce incorrect example output when the intent is to be literal. We need to instead figure out how to get it to accept:
{{tag|!--|content= comment }}
and output:
<!-- comment -->
I'll ask around for the best way to do this.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@John Cline: I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Lua#Preserving whitespace in submitted parameter value.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I agree that the template should faithfully render its output consistent to the input being called through the template. My take on that rendering correlates with the rendering achieved when inserting code from the bottom of the page being edited which I believe uses <charinsert>. If you highlight the word comment, with no whitespace on either side and then click <!-- --> you end up with <!-- comment --> and when you highlight comment with no whitespace on either side and then click <code></code> you end up with <code>comment</code>. This leads me to believe input with no whitspace would render with whitespace. If we highlighted comment with one space on each side and clicked the comment tags we would have two spaces on each side when rendered. I appreciate everything you have done and did not mean to impose on you in any way. I hope that I have not imposed? thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries at all. I had actually been wondering about forced whitespace retention in another context anyway, and had forgotten about it, so this was a good memory-jog.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

br tags[edit]

Just a friendly note that <br>, <br/>, and <br /> are all valid in HTML5. See Help:HTML_in_wikitext#br. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Using the <br> form breaks syntax highlighting and causes other problems, so it should be avoided anyway. If either version is permissible one but one works better, the latter is preferable and a valid reason to change it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of any problems caused by the other versions. All 3 work for me with the regular syntax highlighting. Are you using a gadget for that (like wikEd)? Might be worth fixing there rather than in thousands of articles. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Remember the dot's chokes on non-XHTML. WikEd's might also. --Izno (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
In answer to the question, I use the syntax highlighter available under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, along with WikEdDiff, but not WikEd itself. There are multiple SH approaches, some of which are listed at WP:HILITE. The fact that HTML5 has been tweaked to support some lazy syntaxes doesn't mean that WP should use them when more complete ones produce better results. Same goes for our own xtag stuff; e.g., <ref name="Foo" /> is both more usable by more tools (anything that can parse XML) than <ref name=Foo/>, and more future-proof. If someone changes the ref name to <ref name="Foo 2009" />, the refs don't break, while <ref name=Foo 2009/> does. Extreme "compression" of our wikisource is not a goal in and of itself. Not when it affects human readability of the code, editor (or editor-tool) use of the code, or WP:REUSE of it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kaldari and Izno: PS: To clarify, the syntax highlighter problem isn't that <br> isn't detected at all, it's that it's detected as an open tag for which there is no closure, so everything that follows, even the entire rest of the page, is marked up as if it's content inside a container that starts at that <br>. Now that the recent parser/renderer change has happened, we're seeing new, similar problems, even in the rendered markup. E.g., if you look back in edits on this page you'll see me fixing a missing </small> up near the top of the page. Under the previous engine, MW auto-terminated that (and just about any other unterminated markup) after encountering any markup it didn't think should be inside it, such as ===Subhead. This has suddenly stopped. Any unterminated markup can booger the entire page from the error point on down, and we likely have thousands of actual articles to repair in this regard, nor any easy way to detect them that I know of. For reasons like this, I'm very harsh on "We don't have to code well 'cuz MW will just fix it on the fly for us" arguments. They're specious, lazy, and the the furthest thing from future-proof.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Pool sources[edit]

Hi SMcCandlish. Thanks for your edits on Jimmy White's 2: Cueball. I appreciate the work done (And, I apologies for my poor original editing of the article!) I've recently tried to do some work on the WPA World Nine-ball Championship; as I have been watching back some old Steve Davis matches, and found myself getting quite interested in 9-Ball. The articles are really suffering from a lack of sourcing, mostly due to az billiards being stuck behind a paywall for older materials.

Do you know of any good 9-Ball resources, that I might have missed? I've found a lot of the brackets from the German Wikipedia, but they are only barely sourced. Thanks for your time. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Nah, you do great content work; not everyone's a geeky code formatter or has MoS memorized. :-). I worked it over top-to-bottom (well, other way around, actually) and resolved every MoS and other nitpick I could find. Then did a complete B-class assessment on it (without that, the projects that use the assessments will still categorize a B-tagged article as C-class). Didn't realize AZB was paywalling these days. That's a shame. It was the one professionally-edited "stats site" that I knew of, and that I have tried in years. Category:Cue sports source templates provides some hints, though some of these are for paper sources. Some of those might be doing more online stuff now. One had back-issues available via some "e-magazine" service, but I dunno what they are doing these days. I have a lot of the paper magazines, but they're in boxes in storage. No idea when I might get to them. I had subscriptions to various of them throughout the late 1990s to around 2014, and I also bought a bunch of used lots of them off eBay, but the collection is very spotty, and I don't have immediate access to it (no room to put them, for one thing). The Billiard Congress of America might actually have some basic stuff, but probably not enough to source brackets, just winners and runners up. Maybe the WPA's own site has something. PS: How much does AZB want? If you want to get access, you might actually try writing to them and asking for a donated researcher account, and make a point of how heavily WP relies on them as a source (i.e., how much traffic we are driving to them). The peeps at WT:LIBRARY should have advice on how to get an information access holder to give out a key.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
They have membership levels, which I believe after a certain date, the information is hidden for "gold" members ever. I'll take a look. azb want's $2.90/month (So, to me, that's roughly £2); which isn't a lot, but more money than I'm willing to put forward for something outside of my big hobbies. I'll take a look into this though.
Is there much going on with the Cue Sports WikiProject? I know the Snooker one is very active, but there isn't much for Cue Sports, when I checked it out. Is the B Criteria for the project tag intentional? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Very little going on! Sadly. Intentional: yes. It should be for all projects, otherwise people just slap |class=B on every article they like that isn't a micro-stub without any regard as to whether the criteria are met. In this particular sector, we have lots of BLPs, and lots of WP:OR / WP:V / WP:NFT / WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problems, as well as confusions between similarly named games, and old wives' tales, and so on, plus not-infrequent attempts by pros to edit their own articles. Some actual assessment is a good thing. No one's "enforcing"; one could assess one's own article, and probably no one would notice. Not a huge deal; the B-class stuff is just the pile of "is any of this ready for GA yet?" material, as well as "I can scratch these off the disasters-needing-attention-badly list". Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a bit suprised. I know over in England, Pool is mostly a parlour game, but Pool is huge elsewhere; so I thought it would be a super active WikiProject. I know there is a topic "to do" list for the WikiProject, but with the recent proposed changes with the WP:PW MOS, I doubt I'll get to many of this. There does seem to be a lot of the BLPs on the German Wikipedia for the Pool players, however.
I agree about the ratings. There is a huge jump between B and GA, but that can sometimes just depend on the reviewer. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
True; it's a real mixed bag. Germany: Yes, a lot of great players are coming from there these days (if not from China or the Philippines).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - Indeed. I've just put in a request for more information at the Wikipedia Library, thank you for that. I was really surprised by the state of the WPA 9-Ball Championship article, as it basically just a stub. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish - Sorry about bumping an old conversation, but I've organised logins for the azbillard website. I've asked for one for myself, and one for you, and also left the door open for the future if anyone would like one.
If you are interested, you simply need to register at the forums, and let me know the username, and Mike Howerton from the site will activate the user with the additional permissions. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Cite RfC[edit]

So it appears. -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@PBS: I have several things I want to deal with at that page, like the WP:POLICYFORK from MoS to keep favoring "first major contributor" (i.e., to give various WP:OWNy / WP:VESTED individual editors an illegal WP:SUPERVOTE, against WP:EDITING, WP:CONSENSUS, and other policies) instead of the replacement for it arrived at in an RfC: first post-stub revision (do what the content did, not what the editor says). And undo the idea that people can make up their own citation "style" out of nothing but their butts, and impose it and defend it against all comers no matter how stupid and awful it is (either use CS1, CS2, or a defined citation style from external reliable sources). And get general editor consensus to finally make it clear to the WP:FACTION with a stranglehold on WP:CITE that, yes, the community really does in fact favor templated citations, for objective reasons that trump the template-haters' subjective preferences. And get them to accept that tweaks that neither rearrange the overall code layout in the page (e.g. undoing WP:LDR, or making all cites vertical and so no one can understand the paragraphization in the page any longer) nor affect the visual display for readers, are not covered by CITEVAR. E.g., it's helpful to have a space between |url= and the actual URL, for line-wrapping purposes, but it is not helpful to do this to templates: {{ cite book | title = Foo Bar Baz | first1 = Jimmy Q. | last1 = Snorkelweasel | ... }}; that should be compressed to group parameters and their values: {{ cite book |title=Foo Bar Baz |first1=Jimmy Q. |last1=Snorkelweasel |...}}). And so on. I would take these one RfC at a time, and always at VPPOL. But I also have little patience for drama, so I've been putting it off for years.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to US RFC[edit]

When you say "RFC" on the US use, are you talking about this discussion or something else? -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably. There's been more than one discussion with a thick source-pile like that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Using an existing section since its the same topic. Several of your recent talk page comments include WP:ASPERSIONS, both against unnamed "American" editors and about me personally. I'm not going to throw the MOS DS alert up, but I advise you to rethink (and revise) how you address others in these discussions. -- Netoholic @ 08:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Way off base. I have a lot of diffs to present about your actions at these pages, and that's best done at your own talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
SMC doesn't need to be alerted anyway as he was party to the case. --Izno (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there izno need to alert him again. EEng 12:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Plus, if you deliver a Ds/alert, you are also automatically self-alerted. I.e., if someone left a {{Ds/alert|mos}} within the last year, then leaving them another one is a violation of the stern commandments in the template docs to not redundantly re-alert people within that span! WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY has died a pauper.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Essay idea[edit]

 Done

You might consider putting together User:SMcCandlish/Style guides based on this recent comment, seeing as I'm pretty certain you've said the exact same thing multiple times. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Good idea.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices.[edit]

That section is not about DS awareness criteria but specific page restrictions. We don't normally add edit notices to pages that are just under basic DS. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Oh, I get that. It just re-raises the same question though. If editnotices are "awareness" for that kind of DS [aside from the probably fixable mobile bug], how they can they not be for regular DS? Cognitive dissonance again. I've asked about this in more detail at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Further community input on suddenly closed "Motion: Discretionary Sanctions". That is, they were "awareness" before the mobile bug was discovered.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

False Authority[edit]

Wow, your talk page is a popular place!

Quick question about the addition of "(not always fallacious)" to false authority. I think that is correct for a broader appeal to authority fallacy, but it is my impression that this situation is one in which an arguer has specifically invoked the fallacy by referencing someone without the requisite expertise. If I understand it correctly, that should always be fallacious.

Squatch347 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's all the free cookies and beer. Sorry! I just ran out. >;-) On the change at List of fallacies, I'm trying to square it with what our articles say, and that one is strong, like slippery slope, about it not always being fallacious. E.g., on WP we agree that multiple independent high-quality reliable sources that agree with each other so frequently as to form an academic consensus are as close to truth as we're going to get, so citing such an off-site consensus is an argument to authority in the non-fallacious sense: we agree they really are authoritative, and we're not going to bother doing our own original research to prove that they're authoritative on this point. While the argument from authority article wasn't written with WP internals in mind, it's a good illustration of what the article it talking about, right in the lead and onward. It's vaguely possible we should split it into "(fallacy)" and "(principle)" or something, and not commingle the meanings in the same page (and we could also do it for some other cases, like slippery slope), but that would probably be a hard sell. As for the entry in the bottom section of the list, maybe it needs to be worded better. The article on the sometime-fallacy doesn't get into it, but much of science works this way. E.g. we accept that various "natural laws" are so close to true that we base everything else off them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hyphens promote "-" error for "="[edit]

Another problem with hyphenated cite parameter keywords is fostering use of hyphen "-" error where "=" is intended, as in the revert to "Text "author-link-L. Frank Baum" ignored. I've studied thousands of cite typos, and noticed how editors tend to overuse "-" as if meaning "=" if there are hyphens nearby. This contagious use of hyphens is also seen with other text repeated nearby, such as writing about name "Arthur" and then misspelling parameter "author=" as "arthor=" or such when the focus is on related spellings or punctuation, such as using underbar "_" in nearby text and then putting "author_link=" or similar underscores in the next cite edited. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The templates auto-detect and report this error; you get a clear red warning when you preview. Whether you want to personally use the hyphens or not isn't an issue; just don't delete them when others do. It's a WP:MEATBOT issue, too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

threading[edit]

Resolved
  • In this edit you changed the indent to make my comment appear to be replying to MapReader when I was originally not.
  • In this set of edits, you placed your reply in a way which makes it look, becuase of the outdent, that EEng is replying to you, rather than IJBall as he intended.

I've fixed #1, but left you #2 to fix EEng's proper threading and in whatever additional way meets your needs (and since you also have to sign a part of it). Honestly, this isn't the first time lately, so I'm going to ask you to never refactor my comments or threading, and instead ask me on my talk page to fix anything of that sort. I'd caution you to be more careful in general as well.. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw your revert summary, and trust your judgement on the matter. The post about UNESCO supposedly being a straw man appeared to be direct reply to the post above it: "I am pretty sure a lot of editors would blink if some started spelling out acronyms like UNESCO and UNICEF with lots of dots!" If it wasn't, put it where you like.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RE - AE comment - already asked and answered[edit]

RE - this - replying here since I do not want to derail the AE thread. ARCA has already been recently asked on Israel/Iran (for which there is a much stronger case than Israel/Turkey to include - Iran and Israel being involved in a major proxy conflict in the past 30 years, some direct conflict, and support for various armed groups) - in May 2018. The ruling was that Israel-Iran is not ARBPIA, unless it involves the conflict directly (e.g. Hamas or Hezbollah). In terms of the restriction - I think Israel/Iran would make sense to be in scope (same problems as ARBPIA). Israel/Turkey is different - there has not been direct conflict yet (and Turkey was allied with Israel for many years prior to Erdogan) - it's definitely a weaker case to make than Iran. I'll also note that the whole Israel/Iran topic area (e.g. Iran's nuclear program and related stuff) is filled with ARBPIA edit notices - that are not enforceable at AE.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting a nationalism-based request, but a religion-based one, since it's more central to the conflict on- and off-site that nationality.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's complex. pre-90s/late-80s this was not religion based - it was very much based on Arab pan-nationalism and religion was hardly a factor on the Arab side (and Israel was allied for non-Arab Islamic states - Iran and Turkey). This, has, however been shifting. In any event - ARCA already ruled on this (in regards to Iran) in May 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
For DS purposes, we have to deal with what present-day motivations are for edit-warring and other disruption, not what people's parent's motivations might have been for pro/con-Israel sentiment before WP even existed. :-) ARCA ruled on a scope request to include Iran based on nationalism- and national-conflict-related arguments. I'm suggesting a different kind of scope-change request based on different arguments. If you all don't want to try it, that's up to you. I lack the diffs (or the time to spend finding them) to go there myself.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Well I agree with you - but it probably would have to be an amendment to the ARBCOM case - which is what they indicated at ARCA.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure. That's what the second "A" in ARCA is.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #011, 10 July 2018[edit]

We now have 97 participants.

Be sure to welcome our newest members, BrantleyIzMe, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Nolan Perry, with warm regards.

Work is proceeding apace. We have 2 major thrusts right now: converting the intro sections of portals, and building the components of the one-page automated model...

Converting the intro sections

We need everybody, except those building software components, to work on converting intros. If you have AWB, definitely use that. If not, then work on them manually. Even one a day, or as often as you can muster, will help a lot. There are only about 1,000 of them left to go, so if everyone chips in, it will go pretty quickly. Remember, there are 97 of us!

The intros for most of the portals starting with A through F have already been converted to use the {{Transclude lead excerpt}} template.

The standard wikicode for the automated intro that we want to put into place looks like this:

{{/box-header|Introduction|noedit=yes|}}
{{Transclude lead excerpt | {{PAGENAME}} | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1}}
{{Box-footer|[[{{PAGENAME}}|Read more...]]}}

That works for most portals, but not all. For some portals it requires some tweaking, and for others, we may have to use a different or more customized approach. Remember to visually inspect each portal you work on and make sure that it works before moving on to the next one.

Be sure to skip user-maintained portals. They are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Specific_portal_maintainers.

AWB tips

I've started an AWB tips page, for those of you feeling a bit overwhelmed by that power user tool. Feel free to add to it and/or improve it.

Portal automation

We have some very talented Lua programmers, who are pushing the limits of what we can do in gathering data from Wikipedia's various namespaces and presenting it in portals. Due to their efforts, Lua is powering the selective transclusion core of our emerging automated portal design, in the form of selected article sections that rotate content, and slideshows.

To go beyond Lua's limits, to take full advantage of Mediawiki's API, we are in the midst of adding another programming language to the resources we shall be making use of: JavaScript. The ways that JavaScript can help us edit portals to boost the power of our Lua solutions, are being explored, which will likely make the two languages synergistic if not symbiotic. Research is under way on how we can use JavaScript to make some of the portal semi-automated features fully automatically self-updating, in ways that Lua cannot. Like gathering random members from a category and inserting them into a portal's templates as parameters. Once the parameters are in place, Lua does the rest.

If you would like to get involved with design efforts, or just keep up on them, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design.

When should we start building new portals?

Well, not at the present time, because building portals is quite time consuming. The good news is that we are working on a design that will be fully automated, or as close to that as we can get. And the new design is being implemented in the portal department's main portal creation template. This means, that not only will portals update themselves, their creation will be highly automated as well. That's the nature of templates. You put them in place, and they just... work.

What I'm getting at here, is that it would be better to wait to build lots of new portals until after the new design is completed. Because with it, instead of taking hours to create a new portal, it will likely take minutes.

That does not mean we should be idle in the meantime. The main reason most of us are here is because it became apparent that portals were largely unmaintained and had grown out-of-date. This had become so apparent that a proposal was made to delete all the portals and the portal namespace to boot. That makes our main objective in the short term to improve all the existing portals so that the community will want to keep them—forever.

Building lots of new portals comes later. Let's fix up the ones we have first. ;)

And on that note, I bid you adieu. Until next newsletter, see ya 'round the WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   11:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julius Evola[edit]

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julius Evola. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Lloyd-Webber[edit]

"the only hint of any involvement in politics is his having been an Conservative MP (which for most MPs isn't a profession but a digression, from what I gather)." Don't know where you picked that up - he was never an MP, and what you "gather" is no more true of UK MPs than Americans in Congress. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. The HoL in particular seemed to have a lot of people in it who have other, broader lives. The US Senate, by comparison, is almost entirely career politicians, moving up from the House of Reps, and later on to a post in the administration, or an ambassadorship, or state governor, or something else in the same vein. PS: I guess "Member of Parliament" only applies to the lower house. I haven't lived in the UK since I was a kid, and I hadn't absorbed all the nuances by that age. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes[edit]

 Done: WP:CLUSTERFUCK needs to redirect to that page.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your ongoing and unending effort to tidy up the bureaucracies around the English Wikipedia. Jc86035 (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Grazie! Which one in this case? Heh. So many, so many ...  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ubbi dubbi[edit]

Ubbi dubbi WikiWorld.png Hubi, hubow ubare yubou?
hubellubo, ubextruba Ububbubi Dububbubi.

Uball hubumuban bubeings ubare buborn frubee uband ubequubal ubin dubignubituby uband rubights. Thubey ubare ubendubowed wubith rubeasubon uband cubonscubience uband shubould ubact tubowubards ubone ubanubothuber ubin uba spubirubit ubof brubothuberhubood. ! — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I could not resist. Please check Barbled brotula because I may have taken you too literally. 😉Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Schweet.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess it's not formal Ubbi Dubbi; I grew up with the version that threw in a lot of l as well as b, which is what triggered my "recognition".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
There are lots of variations like arpy darpy and obby dobby (mentioned in that image) and others. I don't know them all though. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Too fair to be realistic[edit]

file from the Wikimedia Commons File:Official portrait of Lord Taylor of Warwick crop 2.jpg This guy has a black skin. Your edits have changed his race. may be if you tone down the brightness a ilttle, it would have been more realistic. I agree the original image is too underexosed. p.s. you look like Robert Downey Jr. --DBigXray 21:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll give it another pass, but there really isn't much to work with (with the tools I know how to use). The original is washed out; it was over-lit, then under-exposed and this produces the effect that an increase in contrast will require a corresponding increase in overall brightness to keep the result from looking like it was shot at midnight in a tomb when the contrast is raised. Pics of him on Google images are all over the map in appearance. He doesn't have black skin, literally, of course; he has the skin of someone often called "black", meaning "noticeably of some African descent". No idea what his family background is in detail. Even in Africa, people range widely in tone. Other pics of him show him not all that dark as Afro-Europeans go [34], [35], [36], [37], probably due to similar shot conditions. Others, in low light, make him look notably darker, even with the same woman (his wife) [38], [39]. I'll see if I can produce a more medium result. PS: I'd rather look like Downey than Buscemi, and am neutral on Rhys (his smile's a bit naturally sneery!).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: File:Official portrait of Lord Taylor of Warwick crop 2 adjusted.jpg as it newly stands is about the best I can do. Any further adjustments just seemed to distort it one way or another (whites of the eyes looking green, blue suit turning purpleish, hair getting red, etc.). You may need to flush browser cache to see the difference between the versions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Ironman, May I know what software are you using ? I would say, the current version is still over the top. I just openend lightroom and did some minor tweaks, not far from the original. i updated the RFC and I have voted my own version now. To repeat, I agree that your edits have improved the original pic, but IMHO its making it look more unnatural. hence my own version and !vote. thanks --DBig