User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 131

Archive 125

←

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

→

Archive 135

October 2017

Fauna titles seastar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Thanks for the big progress recently on sorting out fauna titles – and other titles, too. Keep it up. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thank you!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note to self on MoS copyrwriting essay

I keep meaning to do some kind of "copywriting is hard" or "MoS is mainly for gnomes" essay. This will be a good example of how much work is entailed and how much knowledge of MoS is required, to totally overhaul even a fairly short article article for MoS compliance, though the edit also did a few other things like removed a bogus reference, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'll just start a running log of these:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrystos&type=revision&diff=803239011&oldid=800008368
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-spirit&type=revision&diff=803221550&oldid=803194014

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  last updated 09:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Any idea where it comes from?

I was thinking (partly because I'm drafting some secondary-sourced articles on pre-modern Japanese works off-wiki in preparation for Asian Month) about how we came to allow (per guidelines like MOS:FILM and MOS:TV) plot summaries to be based on the works themselves. Virtually everyone I have discussed the issue with in fora other than MOS talk pages has expressed some degree of discomfort at Wikipedians being able to create original plot summaries, picking and choosing themselves which story elements to cover and in how much detail, just as long as they avoid explicit "analysis".

We don't seem to encourage this practice for pre-modern works like the narrative books in the Hebrew Bible. Many of our articles on Shakespeare's plays, such as the FAs Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet, contain primary-sourced plot summaries, but the latter appears to address the issue by going into excessive detail in a 1,500-word summary -- so minimizing the amount of detail that Wikipedians have chosen to leave out?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's just one of the many flaws of WP largely being driven by entertainment-industry fandom. For every editor working on an article about something like a classic Japanese poet, or Roman-British history, or exoplanets, there are 100 working on trivial articles about pop-culture garbage. Until WP:Notability is overhauled to restrain this, we're stuck with the effect you observe and many other side effects. On the other hand, there's nothing more stupid or frustrating than writing something like "The protagonist of the story is Joe, a football player from Weed, Texas", cited the first first page of the novel which says so, and having some asshat put a {{citation needed}} on it because they incorrectly believe that basic facts can't be taken from a primary source when the facts are about the actual contents of the source itself. So, it can't swing too far in the other direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I always look to the existence of other templates when stuff like that happens. Template:Non-primary source needed clearly implies that some stuff can be primary-sourced and that it's only certain types of information (well, most types of information, really) that shouldn't be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure, the way things are now. I'm thinking ahead of consequences/fallout, if there were to be a sea-change in our treatment of sourcing about works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI comment

RE: "CT hasn't been too accepting of reason why it should at least remain in the lead section."—I've never opposed such, and I believe I actually stated during the RfC that I'd accept such a solution. Could you strike that comment? I resisted commenting on it there because ANI's not the place to discuss content disputes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I can revise it. Skimming over your comments there, you'r sending mixed signals, e.g. "I'd prefer the demographics were made clear, explicit, and unambiguous elsewhere in the lead" but "I'm not alone amongst the commenters here in thinking it doesn't belong in the lead at all.".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I've written implies anything about the lead paragraph. "Elsewhere in the lead" includes the opening paragraph, and I've shown no opposition to that. Whatamidoing even suggested moving it to the second sentence, and I had no opposition to that. No mixed signals. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, "nothing" except "I'm not alone amongst the commenters here in thinking it doesn't belong in the lead at all." I'm glad you're not actually opposed or on the fence about it being includable in the lead somewhere. That should make resolution much easier. Just a matter of getting AL (and anyone else hot to have it in the lead sentence) accept that idea, and all should be well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Given nearly his entire participation has been stonewalling and dodging, I don't expect a straight response to a proposal modelled like Whatamidoing's. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "I will point out that this entire situation has arisen because Curly Turky took exception to the word "adult", which he equates with 'porn'": this is the kind of thing that makes it impossible to have a discussion with AussieLegend—he's still disputing the outcome of the RfC and taking its result as a personal affront. This goes a long to towards explaining why he will entertain no sort of compromise. Don't expect him to accept even what Whatamidoing suggested. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Well, I can't read his mind or predict his reactions, but anyone taking a he-said-she-said kind of stance on this isn't going to help resolve it. I hope that will stop, but in the end I have no control over anyone's temper but mine (and not always that one, LOL).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  he's still disputing the outcome of the RfC - Rubbish! I specifically said at ANI I was happy for the RfC closer to implement his outcome. Provide an actual draft of your proposed changes (something better than The show targets is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" or whatever that you wrote before you said that "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences" was fair) and we can look at it. Because you've provided no actual draft it's not possible to work with anything. Vague suggestions don't help. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  A discussion draft probably would be helpful. So many slight variants have been proposed it's hard to keep track of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  "Rubish" indeed—the last comment at the "discussion" I responded to has you arguing that "adult animation" stood for four years supposedly without issue, therefore the problem was me (of course, more than one disputed it, as I've linked to there). You continue to dispute the outcome of the RfC, and that's the root of the current impass. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  Please get it into your head that I am NOT disputing the outcome of the RfC at all. The root of the current impasse is that you want to move the text out of the lead sentence but you persistently refuse to provide a draft of what you want the new text to be. If you don't explain exactly what you want, how can anyone agree to it? We have a draft of "my" proposal but not yours. Why not? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  Look! You're doing it again! "he didn't have a problem with 'adult' being equated with 'porn'" ... if you have an actual argument for all this stuff, and are acting in good faith, why do you keep resorting to "Curly Turkey thinks 'adult' means 'porn'"? 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  Once again, you've avoided answering the question about the draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm tempted to just go edit the text and see if it sticks. That approach sometimes works. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, do you see how AussieLegend is claiming in the discussion now that I suggested including struck-out text in the article? Do you accept such an assessment as a statement of good faith? Obviously I don't—AussieLegend is doing whatever they can to disrupt the discussion with this horseshit, just as they do when claiming I believe "adult" = "porn" or by mocking me by parroting my comments ("you're avoiding answering the question", etc). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  It would probably work best for youse both to just clean-slate this. Drop all assumptions about what the other thinks, put aside the irritation, pretend neither of you have said anything about this at until right now and just state what you want the wording to be and where, don't try to predict the others' response, don't inject any kind of finger-pointing or testy language. I know that's hard, but it's unlikely that progress is going happen without it. WP:HOTHEADS might help (I wrote it about myself, FWIW).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  I thought we'd agreed to that, but an agreement doesn't work when it's one-sided. I need to see some demonstration of good faith from AussieLegend. Claiming I suggested inserting struck text into the article is the opposite of that. That's not "disagreement"—that's messing with heads. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'd just like to see an actual draft of CT's proposal. That's all I want at this point. I'm not going to support text I haven't seen. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Look at this—he's sticking to his guns and insisting I suggested inserting struck-out text into the article. The striking was in resonse to a comment of yours, SMcCandlish, and I explicitly stated I was doing so—CTRL+F: "I've thus altered my proposed wording above".

  They're "not going to support a text they haven't seen", and they're not going to acknowledge having seen any text that's been presented to them. This has been going on since before the first RfC. Can we stop pretending AussieLegend is participating in good faith? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Maybe both sides should go watch at least an hour of your favorite stand-up comic and have at least three beers in the process, then try again. Something needs to lighten the mood.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm willing to reboot if AussieLegend is willing to revert the last two comments he made, claiming I suggested adding struck-out text to the article. There's no excusing that—no "misunderstanding" or "disagreement" resulted in those comments. A simple act of faith. What do you say, AussieLegend? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Just do it – I double-dog dare ya! Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, I retract the offer. Looking over the current RfC, there doesn't appear to be any chance of AL's preference reaching consensus, so his trolling isn't doing the damage he hoped for (unless his only goal was to get under my skin, which it probably was). I can't comprehend such a mentality. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  You often complain about personal attacks but claiming that somebody is trolling is a personal attack in itself, as is unless his only goal was to get under my skin, which it probably was. As for what I wrote, I based that directly on what you wrote. It is true and accurate so there is no way on Earth that I am going to withdraw it. I've asked you several times now to provide a draft that we can work with and your standard response is "it's in my first comment". I looked at your first comment and what is there is flawed and incomplete. I specifically drew attention to the struck through content because that shouldn't be in a draft. What is left, Something like "The is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" or whatever is incomplete. I explained that there is no way that "The is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" is something that could be added to the article. It's quite obviously missing something after "The" and, as I also explained, you haven't bothered explaining where the text is supposed to fit into the article. The fact that you included "Something like" and "or whatever" clearly demonstrates that this is not a draft, it's just an idea.

  there doesn't appear to be any chance of AL's preference reaching consensus - Firstly, consensus isn't a count of votes. Secondly, let's leave the result of the RfC, which is still 29 days away, to a neutral third party. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Troll someone else, AussieLegend—I'm done with you and your games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Please refrain from making personal attacks. I'm sure SMcCandlish doesn't want them on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Only if they're against someone I don't like, e.g. that p.o.s. who vandalized my car.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  Vandalising cars is a hanging offence IMO. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RM NACs

FWIW, because I don't want to clog the move review, my reading of WP:RMNAC is that any close of a move requires it to be taken to move review if the closer doesn't self-revert. Having been on the end of people questioning my NACs in the past, this was certainly my understanding, though I am generally open to courtesy relists/reversions if asked. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hoisted by my own petard then! I guess the RM-specific rules have diverged from NAC since last I looked at them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the specifics of that page in terms of history, though RMs are now generally the most NAC friendly forum on en.wiki largely because of the extendedmover permission. Non-admins have the capacity to implement virtually any close, and can take them to WP:RM/TR if they aren't. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yar. I'm a PM myself, though I don't use it much (yet). Mostly will need it for tedious reams of template cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note to self: Smartest conference slideshow of all time

Guttmann, Peter (18–23 May 2008). "Ding-ding, and Away!" (PDF). Things that Make us Stupid. AusCERT Asia Pacific Information Security Conference. Gold Coast, Australia. pp. 5–6. Retrieved 2 October 2017 – via University of Auckland.

I can think of lots of uses for this (especially from p. 5 onward, after the crypto geekery [1]).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of Christian denominations

 Done

Hello! I have tried to invite more users to express their opinions on my proposal on Talk:List of Christian denominations, but am having a hard time. I suppose voices of more users are needed in order to accomplish a grounded decision there. Do you have any tips, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Use {{RfC}}; that will automatically attract more people over time. You can also list it at WP:Proposed mergers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

 Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meyers Manx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aftermarket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability_(sports)

 Fixed

Hi. Seeing as you are a pretty regular commentator at these sorts of discussions, it is understandable that you might have forgotten that you already supported the proposed change at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#NSPORTS introduction. Or maybe you meant the second support to be in a different section. Thought I would just let you know. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Oh! Yeah, I forgot I'd already said something; there've been several of these SNG/GNG normalization debates lately. I combined my two !votes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input at Talk:Linda Sarsour. However, it appears that you have misinterpreted quotes taken from sources as proposed text to be added to the article. I quoted several news sources to show that Yiannopoulos and Geller were instrumental in the protest of Sarsour's CUNY speech. This would seem to be crucial in order to accurately identify the source of the protest. The secondary sources that you ask for are already linked in my comments. I would appreciate your having another look at them and revising your own comments as necessary, as I fear that the confusion may sidetrack the building of consensus on the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I will.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Done. Sometimes speed-reading bites me in the buttocks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my further reply. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Move review

 Done

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in the requested move, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal

 Done

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal. Smerus (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You removed another user’s comment

Hi, this edit of yours removed another user’s comment. Did you intend to do that or was it a mistake? Cheers, Linguist^unEins^uno 19:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Intentional. RfAs are not a place to make random commentary on numeric coincidences that last a couple of minutes. It's no different from posting "Ooh, I had chocolate cake for breakfast" or "I wish Trump wasn't so aggressive" on that page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. Linguist^unEins^uno 19:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If the current practice is to refactor to the talk page, works for me. Or just revert me, but I expect one of the people who "officially" patrol RfAs to either remove or move it; happens all the time when people post off-topic noise in RfAs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if we even have a current practice, but moving it to talk is fine. Helps for posterity. Linguist^unEins^uno 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure my grandchildren will study this page in detail. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That wasn’t what I meant by “posterity”, but I couldn’t think of a better word. I didn’t even really know what posterity meant (I know, I’m entirely undeserving of my username). Linguist^unEins^uno 23:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm being silly. Since this isn't someone's RfA page. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

 Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elves in fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warhammer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tulle massacre

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulle massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Gram stain, gram-negative, etc. etc.

Hello! I saw your recent edit to Escherichia coli changing "gram-negative" to "Gram-negative". I know this seems like an obvious change, but of course as with most largely-unimportant technical details, the capitalization of Gram has been the source of some discussion. The U.S. CDC recommends lowercase. The American Society for Microbiology prefers uppercase. Various other groups and style-guides have taken sides as well. There was some discussion a while ago at Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria, the latter of which led to the somewhat inelegant compromise of a section titled "Orthographic note" at the relevant pages. Anyway, I think the capitalization is best considered a "stylistic choice" at this point, and so I've undone your edit to E. coli. No malice intended. If you'd like to talk more about this, I'm more than happy to do so. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Already aware of that. WP has its own style guide, and it capitalizes eponyms, and uses capitalization consistently within the same article. Two solid reasons versus one weak one ("some journals don't capitalize it"). We can RfC it if necessary. WP goes with consistency (per MOS:ARTCON) over WP:SSF preferences, so I can predict what the outcome will be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I must say I didn't realize that. In the case of E. coli the older versions of the article definitely appear to have uppercase "Gram-negative" so I'm not sure when that was changed (and I lack the willpower to search through revisions to find out), so your reasoning per MOS:ARTCON is unimpeachable. For some other articles, the lowercase adjectival version of gram-neg/pos is the only version used in the article. For those I understand your argument for switching to the uppercase version, but could you point me to the part of WP:MOS suggesting eponyms are generally capitalized? I poked around in MOS:CAPS to no avail (unless you're looking at MOS:NAMECAPS?). Anyway, I'll use the capitalized adjectival form in the future, but I'm not sure it's worth our time to go through and correct the lowercase forms that currently exist. I certainly won't stop anyone who tries. Thanks for the note! Sorry for the original misunderstanding on my part. I hope that didn't take up too much time. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll just RfC it. People are revert-warring, on confused bases, at both Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Hore

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Hore. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of OpenBSD security features for deletion

 Done

 – Commented at the AfD.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpenBSD security features 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/OpenBSD security features until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spanish Empire

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spanish Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to redo the RFC.

 Done

 – Commented at the new version.

In light of the changes you made to my draft, I'm pulling the RFC and once Legobot removes it, I'll again put it up, this time including your draft, as the proposed version of the text. I'll let you know when that happens. In light of this, you may want to consider editing your response. Thanks. --Deathawk (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The new version is up. --Deathawk (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello SMcCandlish:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks; happy All Hallows and Samhain to you as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Darn revdel

Thanks. Darn revdel. I'd better change the link in the block log too. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC).

On the possibility of an RfC on parenthetical vs comma disambiguation

Hi SMcC, I'm not sure whether we've acquainted with each other properly yet but I'm Neve-selbert and I would just like to give you my thanks straight-off-the-bat for supporting my side of the argument here, here and here. Your line of reasoning was better than mine, I must admit, and I greatly appreciated your input on the issue. On the subject of RfC however, you have said that this is such an issue that should be settled by a request for comments, which I feel inclined to agree with. I understand that you "don't care much" but if you had the time to draft a rationale for me I would really appreciate it. You certainly know your way with Wikipedia policies better than I do .--Nevé–selbert 15:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Will think on it. The comment here probably has the jist or at least germ of the RfC angle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Speak of the devil: Talk:Church of the Holy Mother of God (Aleppo)#Requested move 28 October 2017.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Would it be a good idea in your view to launch an RfC before or after that RM concludes? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 11:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Later probably. This one case won't matter either way. I'm not even certain I want to pursue this, especially as an across-the-board RfC. It's liable to raise a real ruckus, and when it comes to "how much patience does WP have for another style-related RfC?", I have bigger fish to fry. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that a "one size fits all" rule proposition will fail, because there are some habitual and loud anti-MoS editors who are opposed to site-wide consistency and to rules in general, and they have a habit of bloc voting against major consistency moves that hit their radar. It'll be much more practical to address this topic-by-topic (in a broad sense) and via WP:RM. I would suggest starting with cities and towns and mountains and other major geographical features; do a mass WP:RM of "City (Country)" articles to "City, Country", etc. Then do "campuses", for lack of a better word – places that are undeniably places not single structures. E.g., mass-RM universities at names like "College_or_University (City)" to "College_or_University, City", and "Park Name (City)" to "Park Name, City". Then large structures like train stations, city halls, and courthouses. Then smaller structures one cannot enter, like monuments and statues.

Dicklyon has had good luck with this step-wise approach at WP:RM (though on different style matters), and might have some input. One thing I've learned in doing RMs here and there over several years to get all the animal breed names consistently using natural disambiguation and the same upper/lower-case scheme (almost done – only a few dog articles left) is that a slow approach works best with such things, doing group moves on articles that all have exactly the same format and raise the same issues (so a mass-RM cannot be derailed by an objection to one "un-alike" item in the list). Incrementally gaining consensus to move toward a consistent approach builds its own momentum because the consistency rationale becomes stronger after every move in that direction. It also eventually eliminates the "they're all different, there is no standard, so it should be up to what the wikiproject people want to do on a case-by-case-basis" argument (a.k.a. "let chaos reign", a.k.a. "WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN don't apply to me and my pet topics").
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what group of moves or strategy you're referring to. I've had mixed luck with caps, better luck with dashes since that was settled, and some commas via RFC, much of it not so pleasant and needing interminable RM discussions. I've had pushback on "mass moves" for a dozen, and other times no pushback at all on hundreds of moves. Hard to know what to do here, except start case-by-case and get a feeling for how the community reacts. Maybe it will be easy, maybe it will be impossible to get what you suggest. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice @SMcCandlish and Dicklyon: . I concede that I should probably just WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. Wikipedia is indeed full of inconsistencies, and the likelihood of this no longer being the case is probably the same as that for world peace. Besides, it's just a title. Best regards.--Nevé–selbert 19:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Well, what we're suggesting is taking it slow and seeing what the reaction is. It's not actually desirable that we have this much lack of consistency, and it's a frequent cause of conflict. It's just probably not practical to have a single RfC resolve it site-wide in on fell swoop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Steve Davis

The following discussion 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.

---

Just to say thank you for your message. I have tried to reply to Betty's message on my talk page but have probably not done so correctly. It is worth spending time editing the wiki encyclopaedia but frankly it is not worth my time learning how to have arguments with other users. Ultimately the information I posted, while provably correct, is not sufficiently important for me to continue the debate. It is a shame wiki readers are denied correct information because of over-zealous wiki-police. I work in archive television and am an acknowledged expert in the field. I understand that Betty wasn't to know that, but since I do not have a history of arguments or edit wars on Wiki, I'm not entirely clear why she chose to take issue with a fact that is impossible to verify online without uploading the match on Youtube, which it isn't particularly my place to do. I regularly come across old domestic video recordings, and came across a recording of the match in question recently. I thought the information was notable as it came from Davis' golden period. I can send you an mp4 of the recording if your really want one! But since you clearly know your stuff on here, I will leave it to your judgment whether my edit it should remain or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diariser (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Diariser: See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:TRUTH. "I damned well know it, and I'm a professional" isn't reliable sourcing. :-) Even Stephen Hawking, if he chose to edit here and correct our physics and astronomy articles, isn't a reliable source in and of himself, straight from his opinion or memory. Has to be published material. A TV show counts as published, but one has to be able to cite the broadcast date and the time in the program so that others, with some access to the material somehow, can verify it. A two-sided-coin consequence of this is that WP does have some incorrect information (and, more often, missing information), but the information we do have is generally much more reliable than can be found on random webpages. It's rather like the justice system and standards of legal proof. They are not perfect – some criminals walk and some innocent parties get wrongly convicted – but it works properly more than 99.9% of the time. I don't know enough about the dispute in question to know whether some version of your edit should be reinstated; I was just responding to your need to be able to cite something. A televised snooker match can be cited as a source, if it's done right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks for the info, which is appreciated. Alas life's too short really to learn technicalities of how to it, it's just not worth the time! I'm just trying to add a bit to the sum of knowledge. Maybe next time I'll just put how I know in the edit summary, and leave others to decide whether to keep it in. I do of course understand that there are many peopple who will post incorrect info, but surely this kind of over-zealous policing just discourages good sources from contributing? But thanks again for your advice. Diariser (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Diariser

@Diariser: I have to repeat that "discourages good sources from contributing" isn't the right mindset; you are not a source – only published works are sources. It's important to main the distinction between editors (volunteer writers, i.e. providers of copyediting and sourcing labour) and sources (inanimate things we create citations to). No one wants to discourage productive volunteers. But adding unsourced or improperly sourced material isn't actually a net positive, even if one is certain that the info is ultimately correct, because it creates work (and often dispute) for other editors to deal with, i.e. it's a productivity drain. By way of analogy, think of a major software development project, like maybe you've been hired to work on Microsoft Word 2018. It might be an awesome idea to have Word be able to directly edit PDF files as a native format, and you might be certain this will work, and could even have developed a sandbox version that is functional. But Microsoft isn't going to integrate your major change into the finished product until it's been through rigorous processes like code documentation, internal testing and QA, alpha and beta testing with real user, and user documentation being written. There's a gulf of work between "this would be an improvement" and "this will be in x version of the finished product". It's the same here; doing WP right requires quite a lot of work, and it's very similar to a QA process.

All that said, please don't get discouraged. Figuring out how to do WP, including fiddly citation templates, and what kinds of facts need what kinds of sourcing (mostly covered at WP:NOR and WP:RS), is something that people absorb over time, usually after a lot of reverts and challenges from more experienced editors. It can be a bit of a trial by fire, or at least by tedium. Also, it's not actually required to use citation templates. You can just do a manual citation, something like <ref>Mark Selby vs John Higgins, final, session 1 (at 03:42); ''World Snooker Championship BBC 2017'' broadcast (30 April 2017); BBC Sport. Via [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIjwZFetjsA Snooker Planet] YouTube channel. Accessed 27 October 2017</ref> The {{Cite AV media}} and {{Cite episode}} templates have parameters for such details, but the templates aren't really necessary. Lots of "important" snooker stuff can be found on YouTube, including Steve Davis material [2]. It's not necessary to even have a URL, if you have something on tape or DVR, though it's probably a good idea to do a talk page post indicating that you have a recording of the show for verification, and that you verified the original broadcast date somehow. PS: You don't need to use {{Ping}} when posting on someone's own user talk page; they're auto-notified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:thanks. I guess what I would say is that for many people, wikipedia is not enough fun to learn the details, and if you insist on this before accepting any edits, particularly in areas which are rare and thus valuable but unverifiable sources (i.e. video recordings of old TV shows), then that will be massively discouraging. If it can just be put in the edit summary as you suggest, then that is a lot easier. Is it possible to post a screen grab on a talk page. It just occurred to me to take a screen grab of Davis at the table with the scoreboard showing he needed a snooker. Maybe that will be enough for Betty!

@Diariser: We're not supposed to use screen grabs, as a copyright matter. That's why you don't see them on our TV show, movie, and video game articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Noted, thank you. Of course I did not use it for illustrative purposes, simply for verification purposes, so could now remove it. If only I knew how!

Diariser (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Any input? It would be nice to retain the material, especially since it involves other era greats like Eddie Charlton. It is permissible to cite TV broadcasts and recordings thereof; just need sufficient details, like original air date, and broadcaster, and time into the broadcast that the event/detail in question appears.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

PS, to both: See Maximum break and all the video material cited in its table.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a provided a comprehensive explanation at Talk:Steve_Davis#World_Team_Classic_match_details. I think it is probably better to continue an article discussion there (it always annoys me when editors conduct article discussions on my talk page) and then other editors can join the discussion if they wish. Betty Logan (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2017 (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.

Please comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible renaming of the article Liberal eugenics

 Done

 – Opened it as a proper WP:RM.

Hi.

I thought you may be interested to know that there is a discussion at Talk:Liberal eugenics#NPOV renaming of this article. The discussion was started a few years ago, but I have just added a comment.

The previous comments by J JMesserly didn't get any response and the article wasn't renamed at that point. I don't want it to be like that again, so if I get no response I will just move the article.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)