User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2020/April

Re:Anglicanism

Hello User:PPEMES and thank you for your message on my talk page. I see that Category:Anglicanism is properly grouped within Category:Protestant denominational families. There is a related discussion to this going on here. If it interests you, please feel free to join in. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 16:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Episcopal Conference of of Belarus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Episcopal Conference of of Belarus. Since you had some involvement with the Episcopal Conference of of Belarus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 04:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What's the indispensible importance of that, please? I notice that you don't do edit summeries. In fact you haven't done any of the edits at all that I am trying to help you with in your Wikipedia, with or without edit summaries. PPEMES (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It was explained a few threads above. When you nominate something for deletion or merging – you must indicate that in the edit summary. Otherwise people who watch the template might not notice, they might miss the discussion and if the TfD results in merge and they're not happy with that, there'll be drama.

Also, you've already been asked twice to please set the |type= parameter to "infobox" when placing a tfm on an infobox. Why, oh why can't you do that? – Uanfala (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You know what? There's a lot of work to be done there with merging those depricated templates. You seem to be sure how it is best carried out. Why don't you do it? You're free. Don't let me stop you. I'm waiting for the work to be done the perfect way you want it. PPEMES (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Again, would you mind using edit summaries when nominating templates for merging? It doesn't take that much effort, does it? – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Uanfala, where does it say that edit summeries has to be consequently applied to that specific part of Wikipedia, please? PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, the place is WP:TFDHOWTO. I'm really struggling to understand why you continue to refuse to use edit summaries after I've tried explaining several times why this is important in this specific context. Is there anything in particular that stops you from using them? Again, you don't need to use the lengthy summaries recommended by the instructions, something as simple as "proposing merge, see TfD" will do fine. – Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been making contributions to that area before. None else has complained before. Arguments for edit summaries could be applied anywhere. None else has complained elsewhere. Niether have I, on other users. Although admittedly edit summaries can be quite handy, and although I had made a lot of them when and where I find it motivated, ultimately I understand edit summaries as a bonus service from other users to me, not something I can require from them in all case. Is that a misunderstanding? PPEMES (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, can you enlighten me here, please? PPEMES (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Uanfala. Even if (for some unexplained reason) you want to generally ignore the community wisdom that meaningful and accurate edit summaries are important and expected, in this case there's actually a procedural rule to use them. For my part, I've gone from usually writing very (tediously?) detailed ones, to these days often using quite abbreviated ones like "ce" for "copy-edit", or "rm OR" for "removed original research". I will still go into long ones (usually to cite specific guidelines/policies), especially at a page where I see a lot of similar errors that appear to be introduced repeatedly by one or two long-term editors at the same page (i.e., someone[s] who would benefit from being pointed at those materials, so they hopefully stop making time-wasting work for other editors to do in cleaning up after them). Anyway, when it comes to procedural nominations, I do what the nomination instructions say to do, e.g., "Nominated for deletion at WP:CFD", or whatever is called for by the process in question. Same goes for dropping off nomination notifications if that's also part of the process. A few weeks ago, I forgot to leave a user notice, and it made someone else angry, as if I were trying to "hide" a deletion of something they cared about. Given that so many of us are on edge, being virus-cooped, now more than ever is a time to not be irritating to other editors just for one's own expediency.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. I guess, at least for a procedural nomination such as the above commentated, it makes sense. I haven't used it much before, yet none complained. I may forget it again. But I will try not to in procedural templates nominations, then. Have a good day, and I wish you a descent recovery from all negative outcomes of the crises! PPEMES (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Re:Nomination for merging of Template:Allhallowtide

Dear User:PPEMES, thank you for your message on my talk page. I would actually encourage you to withdraw the merge request as I can easily expand the current template with All Hallow's Eve, All Saint's Day, and All Soul's Day traditions, etc. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 05:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I am able to. Anyway, look forward to your improvements. If improved, I don't mind if the merge gets opposed. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vatican Press

Hello, PPEMES. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vatican Press".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Templates

I think you should slow down with the template merge nominations. Some of the nominations are already questionable, see my comments. Not all topics need to be merged under one template, even if they may seem very similar to each other. We should in general avoid very large templates on Wikipedia. The more specialised, topic-specific, concise templates we have, the better that is for navigation and reading. Mar4d (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess that depends. I am also not in favor of too large templates, meaning templates larger than what a smaller desktop computer screen is able to cover. However, when there are for instance one row footer templates that could be considered to be part of a larger scope, wouldn't you agree that it is worth at least considering? Templates aid navigation, and sometimes bringing it into a larger scope if size permits, don't think that may make Wikipedia better? PPEMES (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I wish to echo what Mar4d says. Some nominations are excellent - like this one: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_31#Template:US_regiments_sidebar. However others are very questionable. It concerns me the number of different editors who are making comments such as "mixing two more or less completely different topics" (Christian75 on 31st March); "has a fundamental distinctiveness" (these two from March 31st, CoffeeWithMarkets on 31st March); " They are fundamentally different" (DGG on 1st April). If a little more time could be put into selecting good templates for nomination, this would reduce the time and burden on other editors to follow and comment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

PPEMES, thank you for taking the time to start making fewer, but better quality, merge nominations. Can I just ask two things again:

1. Could you please use the correct |type= parameter of {{tfm}}. If you're nominating an infobox, that would be |type=infobox. This is so that the template merge notice is displayed correctly on transcluded pages.
2. When you place a TfM tag on a template, could you please use an edit summary indicating that you're nominating it?

Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a batch I thought merited evaluation. Although senior editors supported them, a few of them didn't pass. I've made the edit summary "Suggestion". Is that not proper? Thanks for the type comment. I'll look into it. PPEMES (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! "Suggestion" is pretty vague and doesn't make clear that the suggestion is actually the initiation of a formal discussion that can result in the template virtually disappearing. It needs to be explicit; something as simple as nominated for merging at TfD or proposing a merge, see TFD will be appropriate in my opinion. – Uanfala (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PPEMES, another reminder to please indicate it in your edit summary when you're sending something to TfD, and to please take care to select the relevant |type= parameter of {{tfm}}. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle gadget for XFD nominations

I see that you have incorrectly posted a few TFD notices to talk pages instead of to the template pages. The instructions can be complex to follow manually. You may benefit from enabling the Twinkle gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. The pages in question where locked. Couldn't access. PPEMES (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

PPEMES, you still appear to be doing that. If you can't edit the template page, then you should make an edit request on the talk page. Please don't put the {{tfm}} template on the talk page. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Alsatian has been nominated for deletion

Category:Alsatian, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Monastery of the Flagellation

Hello, PPEMES. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monastery of the Flagellation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Church of Saint James Intercisus

Hello, PPEMES. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Church of Saint James Intercisus".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)