Open main menu

Contents

User awards
Working Man's Barnstar.png The Hard Worker's Barnstar
I probably should have posted this earlier, but many thanks for jumping on board and helping out at POTD in the past few weeks/months. It certainly makes life easier not to have to worry about getting every day's blurb up to scratch in time, and to have someone else who is prepared to do the leg work of making sure the material posted is properly cited and up-to-scratch. Thank you for this and all the other excellent work you do on the Wiki, Ravenpuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

gaudete et exsultate

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Gaudete et exsultate and List of titular churches, for updating the history of images and hooks used in DYK, for dealing with In the news and Main page errors, for sensible redirects and page moves to better capitalisation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
ITN credit
Ambox current red.svgOn 6 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Elio Sgreccia, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Stephen 03:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ambox current red.svgOn 14 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paolo Sardi, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Stephen 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Ambox current red.svgOn 29 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jaime Lucas Ortega y Alamino, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Stephen 03:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ambox current red.svgOn 13 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sergio Obeso Rivera, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
SpencerT•C 17:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Sergio Obeso RiveraEdit

 On 13 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sergio Obeso Rivera, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 17:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nain JauneEdit

Hi Ravenpuff, thank you for helping with the above DYK article. I've checked on the capitalisation of card names and suits and there is no consistency among the sources. American authors, Morehead and Mott-Smith, use lower case (queen of spades), Sir Michael Dummett uses title case (Queen of Spades) and David Parlett capitalises the rank but not the suit (Queen of spades). None of them are wrong. I tend to follow Dummett, especially as it helps to distinguish between six, the number of cards, players, chips, etc, and Six, the card with a six on it. I think the most important thing is consistency within articles. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Regarding consistency within articles, we should strive to follow the Manual of Style wherever possible. In particular, MOS:GAMECAPS specifies that venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to sports, games, and activities are given in lower-case; among the examples provided is queen of diamonds. Hence, we should be de-capitalising card names and suits in the article. I don't think that potential confusion between the number on a card and the number of players etc. is an issue serious enough to merit the former being capitalised. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a creative tension on Wikipedia between the requirement to be encyclopaedic and reflect authoritative sources and the MOS which is just our editorial consensus on the "the way we do things around here". Too slavish an adoption of the latter results in Wikipedia failing to be encyclopaedic and promoting its own brand that overrides what the sources are saying and, often, ignores regional differences in spelling, style and usage. So I don't agree that MOS takes precedence; if anything, the sources should. But I don't generally die in a ditch over this as long as it doesn't turn into a crusade to prefer one style over another when the sources reflect both. We live quite happily with WP:ENGVAR and I think that's a good model. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: My attitude towards MOS vs RS adherence is roughly the same as yours: sometimes it's worth it to IAR and disregard the MOS on a certain issue; it also isn't a hill on which I'm willing to die. However, I don't think it's completely inflexible in its prescriptions towards style, but allows a certain diversity of it in line with reality (e.g. ENGVAR, as you noted). There's certainly room for multiple stylistic options that still wouldn't run afoul of the MOS, whose main role is to encourage a standard look and feel for articles on enwiki, but without ignoring any other considerations. My rationale for the card numbers/suits issue above is that, as you pointed out, different authors use subtly different capitalisation styles in referring to cards. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be a consensus among reliable sources as to a single capitalisation style for us to use in the article, which means that we should defer to the next best alternative: MOS:GAMECAPS. Now, I'm sure that you know more about classic French card games than I, so I'll leave the final decision about what to use in the article to you, but these are just my thoughts on the issue. Cheers. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 21, 2019Edit

Those two edits don't look right to me ... I don't mean that you shouldn't make the SEAOFBLUE edit, only that you should make it during the blurb review or at TFAR (if there is one) rather than a few days before the article hits the Main Page, because that cuts everyone else out of the loop. There's a good reason to link to the list of Secretaries of State. Does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks for informing me; I'll keep it in mind. Re sea of blue: I felt like it was worth removing the link to the secretaries list, mainly because it is of lesser importance in comparison to the adjacent "secretary of state" link already present, where readers can readily access the list article from a hatnote there. Feel free to undo my edit if you feel that it's necessary. Anyway, is there a dedicated page for TFA blurb reviews on enwiki, or is it just TFAR? I can't seem to find it. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Blurb review happens on the talk pages of the individual FACs, as each one is promoted. Join us. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ravenpuff".