This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

January 2017

Happy New Year, SMcCandlish!

Happy New Year!

SMcCandlish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

@Davey2010: Thanks, you too! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julianne Moore

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julianne Moore. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inside (video game)

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Inside (video game). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo! UK & Ireland listed at Redirects for discussion =

Done

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yahoo! UK & Ireland. Since you had some involvement with the Yahoo! UK & Ireland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo! Schweiz listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yahoo! Schweiz. Since you had some involvement with the Yahoo! Schweiz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo! Europe listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yahoo! Europe. Since you had some involvement with the Yahoo! Europe redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo! Canada listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yahoo! Canada. Since you had some involvement with the Yahoo! Canada redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Green eyes

Just thought I'd let you know that I'm envious that you live in a warehouse, something I always thought would be neat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You know, this is his basement?! ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah man, Glenlivet, too? Sheeeeet! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: And I gave up drinking, so it's all just sitting there aging! I do like warehouse living (and started a Facebook group by that name, though it's not doing much yet). However, in the wake of the Ghostship fire, literally just down the street, Oakland has cracked down on residential warehouse conversions. We've been subjected to an army of inspectors and been ordered to do all kinds of retrofits and upgrades. Fortunately I don't own the place (don't have to pay for it), and under some degree of rent control (Oakland is nowhere as tenant-friendly as San Francisco or New York City in that regard, but it's getting better), and the property owners have invested enough in this place they won't just shut it down. However, my place is barely livable for the time being due to deconstruction/reconstruction mess. Half my books are in boxes. That part is pretty stressy. Still, when it's not like this I have more room for cheaper than I thought was possible in coastal, urban California. In some less popular place like Akron or Dallas, warehouse living would be super-affordable. If I get together enough $ to buy a place, it will probably be a warehouse or comparable space, if I can get the zoning permit to convert it to residential or live/work. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So what to do with WP:COMICS?

I don't know how the AfD will close, but either way it does, it isn't going to solve the problems at WP:COMICS. It sounds like you've got some experience dealing with these things. What would you suggest? I hope the answer isn't ARBCOM—I've never been involved in an ARB case and am not interested in popping that cherry. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: "JFC" makes me think "juicy fried chicken". Time to eat, I guess. Yeah, ARBCOM is a last resort, and won't resolve content matters (what should the guidelines say, how are they to be interpreted, does this case qualify, etc.), only behavioral matters. I'm not really sure what to do, or quite what the scope of all the issues are, though I've outlined what's in my head about it right now. I mostly tried to stay out of shaping what the comics guidelines "should" be and focused on helping clarify what they were at that time (MOS:COMICS was much more of a mess back then). Part of the issue might be the commingling of style, content, and naming conventions guidelines all at MOS:COMICS. The NC section of that in particular should be merged into WP:NCCOMICS, and the section replaced with a pointer to that guideline. This will prevent PoV-forking of the wording and its interpretation. When it's in one place, problems with its interpretation will be easier to address. As far as I recall, this merger was already agreed to, and it simply hasn't happened. I may be too "involved" now to perform that work myself any time soon.

The issues I can recall off the top of my head that have beset comics articles, butare also similar to issues raised in a lot of fiction-related editing:

The recent one, of assertion that the comics-focused article is necessarily the primary topic, when a character or whatever traverses multiple media/genres/continuities; plus related resistance to WP:SUMMARY splits. The view seems to be that if a character originated in comics, then comics-related material must dominate all WP coverage of the character.
Non-encyclopedic in-universe writing.
Failure to distinguish between a character in-universe (a fictional person with "agency"), a series or other work title that coincides with that of the character, and the character in the real world as an inanimate piece of intellectual property. (I think that's where you and I got into it once, about pronoun usage and such, but the memory is dim and I don't care to recycle such an argument!)
Fannish sources of low quality
Trivia, excessive detail, and non-encyclopedic "fanwanky" or "fangushing" material that doesn't comport with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This is sometimes "In popular culture" trivia lists, but may also be excessive plot summaries, and piling on of trivial production details, etc.
Some infobox-related disputes, about some trivia stuff making it into infoboxes that arguably shouldn't be there, but I don't recall the details.
PoV-forking of MOS:COMICS and WP:NCCOMICS from other, broader guidelines (i.e., using the comics-specific ones to try to insert "magical exceptions" for comics that would not be agreed to if they were proposed at WT:MOS, WT:AT, or another site-wide venue). This material really needs to be pored over for cases of the comics page diverging from MOS itself, from MOS:CAPS, MOS:NUM, WP:AT, and so on. Someone like me will have to do this, because we have very few editors who have memorized most of these guidelines' rules and can detect conflicts easily.

In the interim, I think one thing worth doing is noting any time a comics-related RM or RfC appears to be going in a special pleading direction, identify whether the MOS:COMICS or NCCOMICS bits being cited really say what it's claimed they do, and if it really does conflict with a more general guideline. If it does, then open an RfC at the main guideline's talk page, with neutral notice (see my example in your Darkknight ANI request) at the talk page of comics guideline, and at WP:VPPOL, to resolve the conflict (e.g. "MOS:COMICS seems to be declaring an exception to MOS rule [whatever], but MOS itself doesn't make any such exception. Is there consensus for such an exception, and if so, should MOS itself be updated to mention it?" (or, in place of MOS, substitute MOS:CAPS, or WP:NCBOOKS or a provision of WP:AT, or whatever site-wide, less narrowly topical guideline/policy the comics one seems to conflict with).

I wouldn't notify WT:COMICS directly, since VPPOL is site-wide notice to all, and project participates who care about the guideline matter are already seeing the notice on the MOS:COMICS or NCCOMICS talk page anyway; it would be nice to get broader input before someone inevitably posts a pointer at WT:COMICS and drowns the proceedings in a bloc vote. Non-neutral notices can be addressed at ANI, as you just did. They usually don't result in sanctions, the first time, but a canvasser will think twice before doing it again, and can be sanctioned if they do it habitually. If it were a "comics versus normal encyclopedic writing" matter, I would probably leave it at that. If it's a comics-versus-other-genres matter, I think I would instead notify WT:COMICS but also all the high-level fiction projects (at least TV, film, anime, video games, novels, and maybe also fantasy and sci-fi), since it affects all of them. If it were a writing-about-fiction-versus-other-encyclopedic-writing matter that happened to be about comics in this one case, I would keep it general, and just notify the guideline pages and VPPOL, and no wikiprojects, because notifying them would stack the respondent pool heavily in favor of fiction-focused editors. Their own project participants will spread it around in due course.

Anyway, I'm not sure there's a "magic bullet" for RM/SUMMARY stuff and comics, since it's a case-by-case basis. Maybe a general principle can be derived, I dunno. We only need one article on the character of Doctor Strange, which should focus on comics and have a film section; but the TV/film material on Batman is proportionally larger and more important than for Dr. S., and necessitates multiple articles, due to multiple TV series and multiple film series, with probably an order of magnitude more people familiar with Batman from those than from comics, despite the comics having come first. I would think that Batman is a prime candidate for a summary style character article, and detailed articles on the separate versions in comics, etc. It made sense to treat the Joker this way, too, even if more minor characters like Harley Quinn can be addressed in a single article with sections. But a TV show like The Walking Dead which has forked very far from its comics origins should be treated entirely separately from the comics and vice versa as much as possible (this gets complicated when people write character articles, and generally results in two sections). A TV show like Falling Skies that also generated some comics should be addressed as a TV show article with a comics section. Etc. Most of these seem clear; it's only an issue when a comics character has huge media presence outside comics and the comics project wants to continue to "control" the topic entirely.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps what could also be done is to consolidate the number of guidelines that each of the high-level fiction projects keep. This would help avoid the higher-level guideline-bending or -breaking as other projects say "no, that doesn't work for us/Wikipedia as a whole". Factionism and cleavage could be our friends here. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: <Resisting urge to make boobies joke> Yes, it had occurred to me that many of these MOS:COMICS kinds of things can be merged into MOS:FICTION as sections, after paring (or at least that their common points can be), and that all the NC pages of a like sort can be merged into a WP:NCFICTION. I think that would actually be very productive. I think it would personally give me a hell of a headache though, and I would do this for sports before I would do it for fiction. I've wanted to do that for some time, after I realized that MOS:CUE (aside from needing a rewrite to read more as a guideline and less like the WP:PROJPAGE it originated as) has a lot of material in it that really pertains to sports and even other events generally, and so do the corresponding pages for other sports. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was my purpose. :) I would be up for it, personally, but indeed it would take some time (and probably poking around those talk pages to see if the people who haunt those [WikiProject] guidelines care or how much they do if so). --Izno (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would start drafting, based on commonality, and then after all the points in common are laid out, start a talk page thread on points where most of the projects are in line but one or two are not (i.e. could be pressured to conform), THEN invite people in. Show them something already done, not a blank slate to either throw their hands up about or do something lame with. >;-) PS: this also needs to be done with transit/transportation projects, as I'm sure Dicklyon and Tony1 would agree – highways, rail, bus systems, airports, etc. – resulting in a MOS:TRAN and WP:NCTRAN (if the latter were really necessary; it could probably just be a MOS:TRAN section). Between the three topics of fiction, sports, and transport, finally having unified, consistent rules on them would eliminate probably a good 30% of total style disputes. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks likely that the AfD will close with a call for an RfC on the issue. I imagine such an RfC would focus on the title- and scope-related issues brought up with Joker (comics), rather than wider WP:CONLEVEL issues, such as the recent Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, though it should be at the article talk page, not the wikiproject one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, which seems reasonable? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That there should be an RfC (including one that focuses on title and scope stuff). I'm not sure AfD is in a position to call for a CONLEVEL RfC anyway, procedurally speaking. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philip J. Cohen

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philip J. Cohen. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

DS / MOS notice?

FYI, did you mean to leave this on Bilcat's TP, as he was the editor that undid your hatting. All the best, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No; the unhatting isn't the issue (and Bilcat didn't do anything wrong by unhatting). The battlegrounding-and-aspersions nature of the content that was hatted then unhatted is, and that was Exemplo347's content. If it had remained hatted that would have been a signal to all involved that the appropriateness was questionable; the unhatting in my view made the Ds/alert necessary because Exemplo347 is clearly under the impression that what they posted was not inappropriate (indeed, still seems to be under that impression). I had misread the diffs and thought that Exemplo347 unhatted it himself, but it doesn't really matter; the unhatting served to reinforce that mistaken impression, so the alert was needed either way. Template:Ds/alerts are not threats/warnings, they are simply notice of the applicability of WP:AC/DS scope to a particular topic, and they need not even reference a specific discussion or post at all, nor do they have to be delivered by admins. They're just a heads-up that personalizing disputes about particular topics can lead to sanctions more readily than when about most other topics. Most editors are in fact not aware of this, nor aware of which topics it applies to, which is why ArbCom wants that alert template used, even if many of us don't agree with its wording/tone. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's a full and frank explanation, and bang on the money to boot. Take care! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dublin Regulation

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dublin Regulation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I award you this barnstar to you SMcCandlish because you have shown to be a person of integrity and honor. Or, more simply, a stand-up guy. Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: Thanks. :-) Is this in response to any particular edit, page, post, discussion? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI during discussion about Dicklyon's ban got my attention. I looked trough your other contributions and concluded that you deserve this barnstar. I was impressed with your honest approach to eventual disputes although I don't agree with your position every time. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Moved to WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pro-tip: If you don't actually understand what discretionary sanctions are and how they're applied, don't go around issuing warnings regarding them. In this case, especially, it looks like a clumsy attempt to score points in a behavioral dispute, regarding advice concerning behavior that very much applies to yourself. But tell you what, you go right ahead and report me at WP:AE, and be sure to explain EXACTLY how I may have "violated" the discretionary sanctions. On top of your current forum-shopping at AE, that ought to be good for a laugh or two. --Calton | Talk 10:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at ANI, I see that you also don't understand the difference between a policy and a guideline -- or were hoping you could slip it past people without their noticing. At this point, I feel pretty safe in ignoring anything you say as being wrong, self-serving, or intellectually dishonest. --Calton | Talk 11:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

Partner resource expansions
New search tool for finding TWL resources
#1lib1ref 2017
Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AWB de-stubbing

Hi, I've seen quite a bit of de-stubbing by editors using AWB lately, relying solely on the length criterion it implements. It led to the discussion at User talk:DrStrauss#Stub tags, for example. Assuming that you agree with me that the list of species in this version doesn't stop it being a stub, have you any ideas on how to revise WP:STUB to get this point over to AWB users? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Ah, yes. I would suggest a note (even a footnote) that bare lists do not count toward length limits, especially if the contextual material in the page remains insufficient. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Does my last comment on the page above look like a reasonable point of starting off to you? John Carter (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: The entire discussion seems like an overall productive direction. Thanks for getting that ball rolling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:R from honorific listed at Redirects for discussion

Done

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:R from honorific. Since you had some involvement with the Template:R from honorific redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scare-line

Done

– and then some; I rewrote much of the article.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scare-line. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS:HOTLINK listed at Redirects for discussion

Resolved

– Material it linked to has been restored, and the RfM speedily closed.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:HOTLINK. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:HOTLINK redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. E Eng 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

Resolved

– It's just rehash, and I've recommended a WP:BOOMERANG.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bronze Wolf Award

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bronze Wolf Award. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User categories

Done

– Commented on the discussion. Not sure I have anything to add to the Topical_index page. It's clearly outdated, but I'm not sure anyone uses it much.

I couldn't help but notice your edits on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Discussion history, a project I've been working on for some time. Deletion reviews have recently been finished, although the regular CfD portion has only a small number done in comparison to the vast number of CfDs that have been made. You may also be interested in this ongoing request for comment. VegaDark (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will take a look. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Register for the draft listed at Redirects for discussion

Done

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Register for the draft. Since you had some involvement with the Register for the draft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. !Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)