User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2023

Happy New Year, Andy Dingley!

Happy New Year!

Andy Dingley,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Big baboon 272 - Do we check all edits?. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Swine Kampf" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Swine Kampf has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8 § Swine Kampf until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Andy Dingley,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"A particularly ignorant and stupid nomination"

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bluebird record-breaking vehicles, you described the nomination as "A particularly ignorant and stupid nomination by someone who's obviously read nothing of the content here.".

That's pretty harsh regardless of the merits of the AfD nomination. We all have to get along and the nominator is a human being, too. There are nicer ways to make the point such as, "I think this nomination is a regrettable mistake". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I stand by it. This has been running for 15 years now, ignorant Yanks trying to delete Donald Campbell because "he never held the land speed record" and "Bluebird 7 never set a record". Dronebogus has had years to create a better impression of their opinions, and they still haven't managed it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I’m going to give you one more chance to withdraw that comment or it’s straight to ANI. Racism/nationalism and vicious personal attacks are absolutely against Wikimedia values. Dronebogus (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m still waiting on an apology. I re-read the article and its an interesting topic. Racially and personally abusing people isn’t going to make them less ignorant. Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Fyi, If this goes to WP:ANI and I'm listed as a participant , I may not be around due to travel this month. I hope y'all can work this out without going to the drama boards - nobody wins.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I was really trying to avoid that, as evidenced by my continued hope for a peaceful solution. Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I have redacted the personal attack. As much as I'm known for being strict with enforcement of WP:CIVIL, I also don't see the benefit in drawing attention to an incident embedded in a discussion that closed a month ago. That said; Andy: the comment was beyond the pale, a clear violation of "comment on content, not contributors", and not acceptable no matter how frustrated you are nor how much you disagree with the nomination. Please don't do it again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Centaur Tank link

Hi, something of a technical query. You restored the circular link to Centaur Tanks in the Cromwell tank article as it points toa specific section, Examining the raw text I can't see how that works as there appears to be no anchors specified, either in the link or in the appropriate heading. Could you enlighten me? Thnks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Headings generate an implicit target.

Really we need more coverage of Centaur. Maybe not at Centaur tank, although we could do as they're clearly notable, but somewhere within an overall article on the late-war cruisers.

Although with an adequate service history for Europe, Centaur tank could be a decent article on its own. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I agree a separate article on Centaurs could be useful, outside my competence I'm afraid. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. I could do the engineering, but I'm not a historian of the conflict. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solid-state relay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Col-float

Dear Andy, I can't find a way to produce more than two columns with the Template:Col-float. For example:

• Italy
  • Alfa Romeo
  • Fiat
  • Maserati
  • Ferrari

• Germany
  • Audi
  • BMW
  • Mercedes-Benz
  • Porsche

• France
  • Bugatti
  • Citroën
  • Peugeot
  • Renault

• Japan
  • Honda
  • Mazda
  • Nissan
  • Toyota

Italy

• Alfa Romeo
• Fiat
• Maserati
• Ferrari

Germany

Audi

BMW

Mercedes-Benz

Porsche

France

Bugatti

Citroën

Peugeot

Renault

Japan

Honda

Mazda

Nissan

Toyota

Are you sure these template are supposed to work with multiple columns? --200.58.135.162 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I wrote these templates years ago. They are certainly supposed to work with multiple columns, and used to work with multiple columns. If they no longer do, that's an new error (the template was changed to use Lua, I don't know why or if that broke anything).

However your first example shows them working correctly and I see 3 or 4 columns there.

I think that the issue is the purpose of these templates, and why this one is different. As it says at the start of the doc page, "Side-by-side columns, based on CSS float."

This template does not strongly control the layout of the columns and their number across the page (table-like behaviour). Instead it uses CSS float (I think it's the only wiki column template that does). This sets the width of the columns, and hints that they should float alongside each other, but how many can fit side-by-side is left up to the CSS renderer on the browser. This means that the number of simultaneous side-by-side columns that are alongside at once depends on the browser window width. In most cases involving prose and lists that are just groups, rather than a table, this is a better behaviour – at least as far as web accessibility goes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that Col-float doesn't work on the 2022 version of the Vector skin... --200.58.135.162 (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well nothing does. The margins set in that skin are ridiculously wide, so anything with columns suffers badly. The best fix is to add some custom CSS to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Andy Dingley,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Stubs

I see that you are still editing. You are one of the few good editors.

Given your edit to 2N3906 you have a better understanding of what a stub article is compared to some other editors. I think you should work on Category:Electronics stubs. I tried cleaning it out on another IP address but a particular editor seems to think that anon editors knows nothing. As a logged in editor I racked up over 100,000 so I reckon I know how WP works. See my contribs on this IP addy and on 121.98.204.148 for my attempts to to do some tidying up.

I get really pissed off with how WP, an important and influential website, is being mismanaged.

Cheers. 103.21.175.228 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You would be taken more seriously (which isn't right, but it's how it works) if you logged in. IP editors are fair game for harassment.

I don't know how this situation arose (your talk page is a little 'prickly'), but things have clearly broken down between you and Pbritti, to the point that they're treating you as site-banned, no matter what you do. This is wrong, but again, it's how it works here.

Your de-stub changes are, of course, right (that article was tagged as Start on its talk: page for a decade). But that doesn't matter: Wikipedia is about the social club for the clique, not the content. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia is a type of social media. Constant314 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, users are blocked from editing for the duration of their block—the treatment of this incredibly uncivil IP user has been generous and patient considering some of their past outbursts and disruption. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you really want to go there?

They made a valid edit to de-stub an article that has been marked as Start for a decade. They were not blocked. You reverted this as vandalism (it was not vandalism). You then sought out a cooperative admin and then had them blocked for a month and a half (for making constructive edits).

Wikipedia does not need you to be their personal policeman. If they make bad edits, then other editors can deal with that. You might even try to engage other editors to do so. But when you're on-sight reverting an IP in order to revert constructive changes, then you have let yourself become the problem. We do not need that.

It doesn't matter how uncivil they are (if they're blocked for incivility, then so be it). But if you're making bad changes to the content just to DENY an uncivil editor, then you're the one being more disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand the situation and policy. This is a disruptive editor who is mass-removing stub templates; when they resumed their disruption in evasion of the block last month, the de-stubs were clearly just the user going alphabetically and removing templates without care for what was actually a stub. See this and this—those are definitional stubs that the IP user removed templates from. Also, please strike your accusation of me being disruptive by on-sight reverting an IP as baseless. Not only does policy provide that all edits made by a blocked user can be reverted, on at least six occasions I actually retained their block-evading edit and adjusted the relevant article talk page to match the destub (example). Now, I have some content to work on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

121.98.204.148 was not blocked. Their block had expired. Therefore they were permitted to edit again. That is how our blocking policy works. You cannot judge an editor as "you should still be blocked, so I'm going to revert you immediately as if you were" when they're no longer blocked.

When that then leads you into reverting valid edits and describing them as "vandalism", simply because of who made them, not what those edits were, then you really need to back away from interactions with that editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Louise Distras. Surely you must be aware of WP:BLPSPS. gnu57 10:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly well sourced. Are you challenging the veracity of it? That she appeared like this, or that Bragg (a significant player in her earlier career) made this comment about her?

The fact you don't like what he said is quite another matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Bragg's post on Twitter is a self-published source. It would be admissible for facts about Bragg, but not about other living people such as Distras. Again, see WP:BLPSPS. If you want to include the fashion commentary, find a secondary source and attribute it inline to Bragg. gnu57 10:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

But it's not a comment about Bragg. It's him commenting on her dress sense, when trying to appeal to a DM audience. It's not a primary source. Now OK, he's no fashionista – but he is a recognised authority on mixing pop and politics. Yet you're OK with this article running unsourced quotes in the lead? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the relevant policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources? Do you understand that Twitter posts are self-published sources? If Bragg had written on Twitter, "I myself coordinate my own outfits to appear palatable to the Daily Mail readership", we could add that information to the article about him. If he writes that someone else is doing so, we can't add that to the other person's article, absent better sourcing. gnu57 22:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at User talk:Firefangledfeathers. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

And just what aspect of that (talk page, not a content page) was unsourced? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The part I had to revdel as a flagrant BLP violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What utter bullshit. Partly because BLP only applies to user talk pages in the most elastic situations, and also because the only contentious thing has been long-sourced here.

Now why are you and that other editor re-adding unsourced content to a BLP describing Jessica Yaniv as a 'transgender activist'? I presume you've been here long enough to understand the need for sourcing contentious topics on BLPs, so where is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What did I re-add to what article?

Your statement was directly contradicted by the source, and was a clear BLP violation. WP:BLP applies to all pages at all times on Wikipedia. There is no allowance to post defamatory material about a BLP on a user talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What was defamatory? What wasn't already sourced by what's in the article? (and just why are you so keen to defend an advocate for 12 year old topless swimming? [1])

You have re-added a previously challenged (on article talk) claim that they're a transgender activist, rather than merely someone who litigates in the hope of personal profit (as the judge stated). Transgender, yes. Activist, maybe. But transgender activist? You two still need to show that. Why won't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you might be confused. I've never edited that article. Your statement on the user talk page was not supported by that source, and I will not repeat it after revdelling it. Also, knock the veiled attacks, e.g. and just why are you so keen to defend an advocate for 12 year old topless swimming? and baseless references to tag-teaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If you were tag-teaming it any more, you'd be on World of Sport on a Saturday afternoon in the '70s, wearing a saggy leotard.

So where's the sourcing, other than the quote from Yaniv herself, that she's done any 'activism' for any transgender cause? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I reverted a BLP violation on a user talk page that I watch. I do the same on many of the user talk pages on my watchlist. You keep asking me questions about an article I have not edited, and asking me to defend edits I have not made. Again, knock off the personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You've been all over this article's talk: page for years, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] to support the inclusion of 'activist', yet still neither of you can source it to WP:BLPRS standards. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've answered around 14,000 edit requests, and removed hundreds more. I don't think removing obvious BLPvio, edit requests without actual requests, not removing sourced information based on personal opinion is "being all over the article talk page." The last diff was me removing your clearly inappropriate comment from a page covered by WP:CTOP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Came here from FFF's talk page. Andy Dingley, you reverted a CT notice, posted a newbie BLP warning on an admin's talk page, shoehorned in a BLP violation, and then screamed bloody murder when it was deleted. You got off lightly: many admins would have blocked you immediately. Drop this and move on, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You got a source for that "transgender activist" claim yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm discussing your behavior here, and edits made by FFF or anyone else are utterly irrelevant. I'm not getting involved in the dispute about Yaniv, but if I see you post more BLP vios, I will block you. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

Hi,

Thanks for your intervention at User_talk:51.6.35.255. I've been watching this editor's work for a week or so now, unsure how to proceed. It's hard to know what to do when they won't communicate, and most of their edits aren't actually doing much harm. There seem to be two main aspects to their activity. One is updating piped links when the target page has been moved, and I think that's valid (I also think that their edit at Maxine Peake falls into that category). The other is "fixing" redirects. I haven't reverted any of their edits yet because, frankly, I've got better things to do with my time.

There actually seems to be a great deal of confusion around this issue, even among experienced editors - and I don't count myself one of their number. If you have a moment, would you mind looking at a recent controversy I was involved in that began with an experienced editor (15 years, 110,000 edits) reverting a number of my edits with the edit summary, "bypass redirects"? The story continues here, here, and here.

Lastly, I think I recognise your name from uk.rec.cycling about twenty years ago. Nice to see you, and keep the rubber side down. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I must say that I find it quite amusing that you are still not recovered from the pushback I gave last August. And the "strong consensus" you mentioned elsewhere is this discussion, also stated to not correct those links as only edit. The Banner talk 23:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) accidentally ended up here. I will leave you in peace now.

Typical Wikipedia: policies are excellent and well-honed, if only some people would read them before citing them to defend their own position. Although there's an annoying tendency recently to just edit the policy page and add a new policy to support yourself (on Commons at least) – the traffic on them is so low that changes can go unnoticed.

I looked through a lot of their political edits and would agree with them on most of them, as they were often clarifying historical changes of department names. However the sheer bulk of their changes makes this difficult to manage, so bulk rollbacks often become the only way to keep up. Hence trying to engage with them a bit more, and get them to stop breaking the non-broken.

Yes, I used to do a lot of Usenet. Cycling and woodworking in particular. I even found myself working for the same place as Jobst Brandt, the wheel building guru. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I was quite active on rec.bicycles.tech in the days of Jobst and Sheldon - may their names be blessed! And I also worked on the factory floor at HP in Filton for a short while in the late nineties, building DAT backup drives. Those were not happy times, but the cheap staff canteen almost made it bearable. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. I lurk on Andy's talk page because I learn things here. I would like to point out that MOS:NOPIPE is a guideline rather than a policy. I think I mostly agree with @SMcCandlish:. My main concern is that redirects get redirected. In the spirit of WP:AINTBROKE I generally assume that whoever first added the link knew what they were doing, and it should be left the way they did it. I also used to use Usenet a lot, mainly in sci.electronics. Constant314 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the problem with assuming that whoever first added the link knew what they were doing is that to determine who first added the link requires a trip through the revision history. Normally we only see a link as it was last edited, and it may be that the person who last edited it did so because they hadn't read the guidelines at MOS:LINK, or had read them but preferred not to follow them. It may be that it just doesn't matter that much, but in that case, why have guidelines?

To me, the most surprising thing about this issue is the contrast between the strong consensus expressed at WT:REDIR, and the almost complete lack of consensus about how, or indeed whether these guidelines should actually be followed. My own assumption tends to be that the guidelines in the WP:MOS and elsewhere have been developed to promote a consistent way of working, and thereby avoid unnecessary conflict. No doubt there are other valid ways of working, but if you live in a country where everybody drives on the right, choosing to drive on the left isn't going to lead to a quiet life. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. There does seem to be a very strong consensus for using redirects. Constant314 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would have turned out the same way at WP:VPPOL. It's pretty clear that in actual practice the guideline in question is being actively resisted by a lot of experienced editors, and so probably needs to be moderated. It's one thing to have a guideline that is often not followed by people who just don't know it exists, and which exists mainly for cleanup gnomes and settling disputes among them (like much of MoS). But here we have experienced editors pointedly and routinely citing an actual rationale that is opposite what the guideline wants, and "fighting" for their position on the matter. This strongly suggests that the guideline in question, and the "camp" on that guideline's talk page, are trying to legislate change in editorial behavior instead of describing actual editorial best practices. For my part, I've been leaving entirely harmless redirs alone now, but I still swap out ones that are not helpful, e.g. where someone has done [[Spelling 1|Spelling 2]] because they prefer Spelling 2 but it is not the one preferred by the sources, or where it might be reader-confusing for some other reason (is very ambiguous, is grossly biased, is veering into a variation at odds with all the other usage on the page, isn't a variant found in the sources at all, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Where would you stand on edits like this and this? To me, piping [[First World War]] to [[World War I|First World War]] makes absolutely no sense. All of the changes in the latter example, likewise, and changing [[UK]] to [[United Kingdom|UK]] seems particularly perverse. I asked our friend 51.6.35.255 to come and chat, but they deleted my invitation without responding. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't change any of those. I only make changes when there is a better target or the pipe is truly broken as in leads to the wrong place, a DAB page, or nowhere. Constant314 (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems our friend may be "Harry the house". And to judge by the modus operandi, so is 92.64.217.84. Ah well. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP is a blocked editor, User:Harry the house. Should be reverted and reported to AIV on sight. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Actors' names in Plot

Hi Andy, I see you reverted my edit on Hell Drivers (film) where I had removed the actors' names from the Plot section. I made these deletions per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot – "Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section." best wishes. Tobyhoward (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, if the guideline is that specific (the section on cast isn't). I'd still disagree with this, as it makes the article so much harder to read and forces readers to switch between two sections: it's an obscure film with an obscure plot, mostly noted for the future careers of the junior cast. So most readers will recognise the actor, but not the role. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I take your point Andy, but I disagree -- I find the Plot harder to read if the actors' names are included. I think one could also argue that the Plot is logically independent of who plays the roles, so actors' names don't belong there. I accept that our views differ, but I think we should honour the MOS, so I propose that I reinstate my edit. Tobyhoward (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On 2-8-8-8-2

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2-8-8-8-2 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2-8-8-8-2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(C&P from User talk:マイヤー式機関車 --マイヤー式機関車 (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC))

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Andy Dingley:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Preserved beam engines has been nominated for merging

Category:Preserved beam engines has been nominated for merging. 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. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Photo archives has been nominated for renaming

Category:Photo archives has been nominated for renaming. 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. Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi Andy. I'm very glad to see you're back around. You're edits and your views were always greatly appreciated. I just wanted to wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas! And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a Blessed Hatsumode, or just a really great Sunday. Or, my personal favorite, a Festive Viking Yule! (Which is what it is anyway.) Whatever your choice, I hope your holiday season is a great one, and may the coming year bring happiness and joy! Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Kamaz vehicles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4×2.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Europlug

Rewireable Europlugs are freely available and obtainable from many suppliers. Just one example from the 72,400 Google hits. 2A00:23C8:9883:2601:1151:33CC:ABCC:5414 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. However see the recent changes from @ZH8000:. Rewireable Europlugs may be available (as are 'Europlug sockets', despite those being outside the standard) and if CPC is selling them then I expect that they'll even be conformant to some standard somewhere (some of CPC's products are at the 'bargain end' of production, but they're legal). Note though that although these are wireable they are not rewireable by the definition of the standard (and are presumably thus standards compliant), despite how the product description describes them. A non-rewireable plug is one that can't be re-wired by the consumer: it is wired once, by the manufacturer, and then closed and insulated such that there is no defined method of re-opening or re-wiring it afterwards. Many of CPC's products are not intended for retail uses, but for manufacture.

To put it simply: CPC sells non-rewireable plugs, which the maker's documentation describes as rewireable.

I haven't read these standards enough to state authoritatively if 'non-rewireable' means that they cannot be rewired and it is prevented, or less rigidly so that rewiring is just not a supported operation (and a fully rewireable version would also be compliant, even though this is outside the spec). But that doesn't matter here.

The situation is more complex than a simple word, or lack of, can address. Maybe we need to write a fuller statement to try and clarify it all. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, additionally they're Class II, not Class III. Please be careful not to change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You completely miss that the addition in the lede is not compliant with WP:LEDE. Neither is the addition of the reference as they are not permitted in the lede. It is not encyclopaedic to try to claim that the plugs can only be permanently attached to a power cord when rewireable plugs exist in abundance. CPC is not the only supplier. It is more difficult to find a supplier who does not supply them. RS and Farnell are just two respected sources of many.

Europlugs are frequently encountered as part of a plug in power supply without a power cord betwixt the plug and supply. Apple is a notable source. These supplies have to be UKCA compliant in the UK so a supporting standard does exist. The European CE requirements only apply to the power supply part and not the plug (The low voltage directive specifically states that the CE marking scheme excludes domestic plugs and sockets). 2A00:23C8:9883:2601:E87D:F1FF:F:90A0 (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• You still haven't shown an example of a rewireable plug.

Citing LEDE like this is just sophistry to try and justify your content-change pushing.

I'm not familiar with Apple products. Are you referring here to their multi-standard Euro adapter (too short to have a cable)? I can't see how that changes anything: it's still not a rewirable plug.

Just for clarity, are you now or have you ever been either of I B Wright or Bhtpbank? Your editing style seems so familiar. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Just Google “Rewireable Europlug” for yourself. As I said, it only returns over 72,000 hits but I grant that may be a degree of overlap.

Apple iPhones and iPads are (or were) sold throughout Europe with a charger that had a built in Europlug much like anything else sold that was rechargeable. I have examples made by Apple, Bose, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, LG and Sennheisser plus a bucket full of other examples left over from my time in Brussels.

As for your assertion: I will have to pass on that one as I have no idea what your angle is. 2A00:23C8:9883:2601:E87D:F1FF:F:90A0 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, rewireable Europlugs exist. [7] They're still forbidden by the spec. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually seen this in EN50075 for yourself or are you taking someone else’s word for it? The spec is not accessible to us mere mortals without a large amount of money changing hands. 2A00:23C8:9883:2601:E87D:F1FF:F:90A0 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I guess my block didn't save. Fixed now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• It's an EN. The abstracts are freely available, some of the full ENs also circulate as samizdat. Do you question what the standard says (that it's non-rewireable)?

To quote the scope, "This standard applies to flat non-rewirable two-pole plugs without earthing contact with a rated voltage of 250 V a.c. and a rated current of 2,5A."

I don't know what your point is here? You seem opposed to the article stating that the standard specifies non-rewireable (when it clearly does). You seem opposed to anyone opposing stating that rewireable plugs have since appeared, outside the standard (but no-one has done that). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)