Open main menu

I've kept a few old talk page comments like DYK notices out of vanity.

Contents

DYKEdit

  On June 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commonwealth v. Kneeland, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Discharge petition, was selected for DYK!Edit

  On February 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Discharge petition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

DYKEdit

  On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Comuneros, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK: L'EncobertEdit

  On 23 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Encobert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Revolt of the BarretinasEdit

  On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Barretinas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

PeterSymonds (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nico SmithEdit

RlevseTalk 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)Edit

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for the ratification maps you added to US Constitutional Amendment articles; they're a great addition. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)Edit

The article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help in bringing Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption to Featured Article status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Amelia Earhart: The Lost EvidenceEdit

 On 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that television showings and online streaming of the documentary Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence were stopped after a blogger discredited its key photograph ? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mosaic (murder mystery)Edit

 On 19 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mosaic (murder mystery), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Steven Soderbergh's Mosaic is both a mobile app and a television miniseries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mosaic (murder mystery). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mosaic (murder mystery)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch‎Edit

I think the anonymous user technically has a point: the two sources cited for that sentence only support Kevin Deutsch‎ fabricating sources. I think the solution would be to add there one of the later sources that covers his fabricating quotes and events. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: I added in very short comments indicating which sources are being used for which words in the sentence, and added an extra reference, but I really don't think it will help. It's Deutsch, he's self-interested, it's not REALLY about sourcing policy, it's about his vanity attempts to impose his own PR over what the news articles say. It's not like he's going to be convinced. If it keeps up, I'll just request semi-protection again; he is a banned user, after all, and isn't supposed to make any edits at all. SnowFire (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Looks good. Yeah, I realized who you're dealing with. That's what I meant about his "technically" having a point. I think the lead is more bulletproof now. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Noyes MuseumEdit

 On 12 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Noyes Museum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the director of the Noyes Museum of Art said it "was in a beautiful location but it was in the middle of nowhere"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Noyes Museum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Noyes Museum), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tex SchrammEdit

Regarding my edit at Tex Schramm to remove Tex in quotes, MOS:NICKNAME says to only use quoted nicknames if "it is not a common hypocorism[c] of one of their names". I think a reader would recognize that Tex is a diminutive of his given name Texas, and a redundant quoted name should not be needed in this case. Let me know your thoughts.—Bagumba (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba:: I will admit that I don't know anyone named "Texas" myself, so I could be wrong on this, but it doesn't strike me as "common"? At the very least, the name "Texas" is a very uncommon name - well, globally at least. That said, it does follow the "shortening to the first syllable" rule, so what do I know. If you really feel passionately, feel free to re-remov it; just that means "Tex" is nowhere in the lede, which seems wrong, because it might cause the reader to wonder why the article is titled that. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Not restating the nickname is like with the Tom Hopper example in the MOS, where his full name is Thomas Edward Hopper. Now you have a good technical point about "Texas" not being "common", but I believe the spirit of the guideline is to not quote obvious nicknames, common or not.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your ideaEdit

I have made a comment in Talk:SeaTac/Airport station. Your idea is reasonable but see my explanation to why I think so (sidesteps the question if the buses go to the station or are adjacent, this is cited as "adjacent" possibly because one must cross two streets to get from the station to the southbound bus stops. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Want to add something like this?

Bus and rail connectionsEdit

King County Metro buses:

  • RapidRide A Line: to Tukwila International Boulevard Station or Federal Way Transit Center
  • Route 156: to Southcenter Mall, Des Moines and Highline College
  • Route 180: to Burien, Kent, and Auburn

Sound Transit buses:

  • Bus 560: to to West Seattle, Burien, Renton and Bellevue
  • Bus 574: to Tacoma and Lakewood in Pierce County

moe. (band) page moveEdit

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)#

C-evoEdit

Please stop removing valid reception sources, there is nothing more to say here. About the infobox, there was no discussion, and there is not policy enforcing the unsuitable VG box. cheers Shaddim (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC) EDit: Consensus about software needs to include me. Consensus about SOFTWARE needs to include more than the VG portal. so no consensus. Not even in the linked discussion on VG there was no consensus. Shaddim (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your revertEdit

Hey, I read the move discussion and it still does not change the fact that the name its using is not one of the available naming convention styles (as a side note, out of 5 people in the discussion, 3 were in support of some kind of move). This is a hidden category which isn't viewable by any reader (unless looking for it), so please don't revert. --Gonnym (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: The naming conventions are just that - conventions for the "average", normal case. They are not binding rules and even if they were, they sometimes conflict. Basically, what's the purpose of the category? My assumption is that it's a "maintenance" category, which means it is an invitation to perform "maintenance", e.g. page moves, on everything in them. The problem is, what is to be done about cases where there is a consensus to use a title that is not an "available naming convention style"? This implies that there is no maintenance to be done. If that is the purpose of the category, then it shouldn't be in it, or should at best be in a "cleared for use / endorsed by at least some editors" subcategory to distinguish articles at an unusual title due to intentional choice vs. articles at an unusual title simply because the article creator didn't know any better. SnowFire (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, the conventions (and in particular), our naming convention, don't fully apply to this article and you are also correct in that the motive of this maintenance category is to eventually fix articles in it and your idea of a white-listed category might be something worth adding. However, in this specific case, implying that the latest vote found a consensus for the title is wrong. 2 out of the 5 did not support a move, while the majority (3) thought that the current title is wrong, but couldn't agree on a new one. That is part of the reason why I didn't jump in on this (or other articles), but instead added them to this category. Some of the articles are easy fixes, while others should need extended research and discussion to find a better name. --Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Thanks for the reply.
I suppose I was unclear and should have separated my concerns: A) What do you think should be done for a hypothetical article where there is an indisputable consensus its current title is correct? (From your reply you're okay with a whitelisted category for this, or just not including them.) B) What should be done for articles that are just wrong without any evidence of long inertia, an argument for it, or anything? (For this, I would agree that your category is perfect.) C) What should be done when at least some editors are defending the current title as proper - perhaps it's not even clear that the television guidelines apply - but other editors, perhaps including yourself, disagree? (This is the Mosaic case.)
Basically, setting aside the merits of Mosaic's current title, I'd personally argue it'd be better to be "conservative" and only focus on the B set in your category. The C set is inherently an issue of policy, not of simply maintenance. Maybe there isn't a strong consensus for a title, but there isn't necessarily a consensus on how to fix it. It's okay to have, say, a user-space list of "articles that I think are totally misnamed!" that include C-space stuff. But adding them to a category has a certain official imprint to it that Something Is Officially Wrong, when editors in good standing are saying otherwise. It's not good to predecide such matters.
Anyway, there is a cut-the-knot solution to this: do you have any better ideas on how to title the Mosaic article? Bear in mind that not participating in that RM were some WP:VG people back when the article was first made who also took a puzzled look at the title, shrugged, and then said "yeah I guess I can't think of a better title." Also bear in mind that it's not originally a TV show so the WP:TV guidelines are not necessarily gospel. If there is some better title that didn't come up in the RM, I'm happy to listen to suggestions! SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
For scenario A - if there is a consensus for a title that goes against a guideline then a white-listed category should be created so it its state will be acknowledged but not be miss-identified as needing a fix. For scenario B - If an article is using a title style not in the guidelines, either the guideline should be changed to accept that (if that's what the consensus decides) or the title goes in this category until someone wants to start fixing the issue(s) with it. For scenario C - I'd say this also goes in with category B. If there is no consensus for that title and instead is left at "no consensus", then hopefully eventually someone might be able to find a title that works or get a consensus to support one or the other. Aside from Mosaic, I didn't encounter any other articles that differ so outside policy, so it's really its own scenario. I don't really have a fully established idea for the title as I didn't research it and see what RS call it, but my gut feeling is that it would be something along the lines of "interactive x" - either interactive film (not movie), interactive miniseries or interactive storytelling / interactive story. --Gonnym (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Thanks for humoring me and using a different category name! SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the internet so its hard to distinguish between a real response and sarcasm, but I hope it was real. I never wanted to stream roll over anyone, just to get some articles fixed and figure out why some aren't (if there is some kind of common theme). Some new information has already came out of this process. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Yes, the above comment was sincere and not sarcastic. It's great that you're paying attention to the issue, I just wanted to make sure we didn't force everything into a one-size-fits-all approach. SnowFire (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion neededEdit

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, SnowFire. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gamesdonequick WikiEdit

Are you like the only active person on the GDQ wiki cause I asked something in the talk yesterday and no one has responded to it yet Sorry to bother you :P Zebrazach20062 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GDQ again :PEdit

So someone came by and made the facts have dots and they look ugly to me i will be getting rid them unless you are ok with them also some stuff has been changed so we should make sure its all accurate and what we want instead of IP's doing that :PZebrazach20062 (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben Mendelsohn pageEdit

Hello: Your edit removed the entirety of the actor's filmography, which is not acceptable. Also not convinced your statement about director not being a column in filmographies is accurate, but no matter; please don't trash a section of an article straightaway without having the fix ready, or in the alternative, suggest it on a talk page first. You did neither.--Brad Patrick (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@BradPatrick: Thanks for noticing. Obviously this wasn't intentional, and preview was misleading because it "looked" like the table was still there and lacking a column thanks to the table immediately beneath it. Sadly VisualEditor, terrible as it is, is the easiest way to delete a column, so I was stuck using that which I don't normally. Anyway, take another look; happy to discuss the "director" column issue, but it's really random in my opinion, barring - maybe - actors who do a lot of work with a single director (e.g. Samuel L. Jackson & Quentin Tarantino, maybe). There's lots of fields about a movie that could potentially be included, why pick Director? SnowFire (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Eddie Gallagher (soldier)) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Eddie Gallagher (soldier).

User:Hughesdarren while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)Edit

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (Retro is my main account.)

Disambiguation page styleEdit

Hi,
I saw your comment on the revert for Doug Jones; this may be a misinterpretation of what dab page style calls for.

Per MOS:DABENTRY:

Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. If the type of entry is identified in a header (e.g. songs, films), it usually does not need to be repeated verbatim in the description.

Brevity is considered a key virtue of dab pages. The typical reader isn't there to learn about all the Doug Joneses; they're there to find the page for a specific Doug Jones. Saying "Doug Jones the boxer is an American boxer" does not help the reader; it slows them down—especially the ones who are not looking for any boxer at all.

Hope this helps -- NapoliRoma (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma: I'm of the opinion that "In many cases" in that guideline is wildly overblown. Sometimes solely the article title is sufficient, but this is rare. I'm a fan of brevity in disambiguation, yes, but I think that "bare" links are almost always a bad idea since they provide literally no context. They also force the reader to switch between the description and the actual Wikipedia article title, which is not good; a reader who is just checking the bluelinks will still get the experience you want, but a reader who is reading the explanations will be forced to dart back to the actual titles if some of them are "empty". So actually I'd argue your style can be slower for the reader. Anyway, for Doug Jones in particular, I feel that even adding "American" to boxer helps. There's brevity and there's a complete lack of context; obviously I'm against rambling paragraphs too, but I do think a short description (<10 words usually, sometimes <6) is usually merited, and is certainly merited on the Doug Jones page. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion on this, but it's not "usual disambiguation page style". It's the opposite of the guideline, which says—five times—that the goal is brevity.
I'm at a loss to understand how "Doug Jones (boxer)" provides "literally no context". It has his name, and his differentiating occupation. There are no other boxers on the page. "Boxer" is everything a reader needs to know to get to the proper page.
Besides brevity, one of the key MOS:DAB guidelines is to not hide the disambiguating element of a topic article title. If the bluelinks were the extraneous material that readers are supposed to skip over, it would seem to me we'd be minimizing them, and not the additional verbiage.
I'm not against additional descriptions where they're useful and warranted. For example, Doug Jones the politician is most well known for his Senate victory, and although "politician" is a unique description, "Senator" is arguably what most readers would be looking for.
But I can't see any reason to add that Doug Jones (American football) is an American football player. There is no guideline that says "it's helpful to have a description, even if it's redundant", and in fact there's a guideline that says not to do that.
--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"I had a geologist friend give the article a look over"Edit

Special thanks for doing this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Payún Matrú/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yeah, that was the actually relevant sentence of my review, everything else was basically fluff. An anti-pattern that FAC sometimes falls into - less recently as best I can tell, but certainly a few years ago - is overemphasizing "prose" over content. Prose is nice, of course, but accuracy & comprehensiveness is even better, so getting a check from people who are at least familiar with the material is super-important so as to avoid the worst-case scenario of well-written nonsense. (I MIGHT be slightly bitter at the one time I went to FAC being supported by people who knew the topic but opposed on vague prose grounds, so I'm a bit biased, I admit.) Anyway, good luck on the FAC, and nice work! SnowFire (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I still remember the complaints on WT:FAC about this tendency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Any advice?Edit

Hi SnowFire, I did not appreciate the tone and implication of your comment at 1947-49 Palestine war, but take it in good faith nonetheless.

As I have written elsewhere, the current situation is akin to having an article called the Great War, covering the period 1914-18, and then a sub article called World War I covering the period 1917-18 (post the entry of the United States). The two names “1948 Palestine war” and “1948 Arab-Israeli war” are synonyms in common speech, so our unique way of treating it causes confusion to readers, as evidenced by the pageview stats.

Frankly it’s an embarrassment to Wikipedia’s coverage of the Middle East conflict, and we have been unable to fix it.

As an experienced editor, could you provide any advice on the best way to make progress here? I am trying hard to make this encyclopaedia a place that readers can trust, and find attacks like your own to be disheartening.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Thanks for the message! A few bits of advice:
  • It is considered bad form to heavily modify a RM after it starts, and especially to ask everybody to vote yet again. An anti-pattern Wikipedia has - not accusing you of this to be clear, but it's an issue - is what do you do have you have 5 zealots who show up everyone to loudly declare that the color orange is bad and should be banned, and there's 1000 editors who don't really see a problem with orange (but aren't zealous pro-orange editors). Process needs to be designed not to reward sheer bloody-minded persistence. As a result, you need to be extra super transparent when trying to "reset" a vote, especially when a bunch of people already voted oppose. Either copy their original opinion into the new table, or ping previous editors who voted and solicit their opinion. You really don't want to give the impression of just burying results you don't like and being like the hypothetical 5 editors who all hate the color orange above.
  • For the pageview stats, isn't it possible that most readers are only interested in the Arab-Israeli war part of the conflict?
  • For your analogy, consider another case: perhaps somebody made an article on "Extended World War II" that included the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, etc. Would it be surprising if most people still went to the WW2 article that starts with the invasion of Poland? That doesn't seem like a problem. Because that's the argument against.
  • For the best way to make progress, see above - if you're really sincere about this new table, ping anyone who voted in the original RM and/or include their opinion in your new table. Don't assume that editors surely would have changed their minds had they seen your new arguments. (Alternatively, give up on the fancy table and just go back to the normal RM votes in text.) If the RM doesn't succeed, then start smaller - work on the subarticles, work on the ledes, and check the sources. You can do a lot just via productive editing that happens to conform to your preferred structure. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi SnowFire, thank you very much for taking the time to write this. I agree with your first bullet; my intention was to find a way to get all those who have contributed to remain involved. It’s not easy when you’re deep into a topic and those voting clearly haven’t bothered to read the sources, since everyone’s votes count the same (even if they’re not supposed to under wiki-theory). I had pinged all the opposers after my new proposal was already laid out,[1] but no one responded or engaged. What I didn’t expect was for people to start voting on the new proposal in the table when they did[2] (it was supposed to be up for further comment) so I had to make some quick decisions. I had wondered about trying to close the original RM but didn’t want to look like I was trying to ignore the existing comments. So it’s a bit of a mess, and not intended to be this way.
As for your second bullet, the answer is an unequivocal no. I don’t know how else to prove this to you or anyone else if people won’t read the sources. That will answer your third bullet too – the answer to your analogy is also in the sources. It is incredibly frustrating, particularly since Bolter and I made a big effort to lay the sources out clearly for everyone to read on a subpage. If too few people will read the sources, is there any way I can hope to fix this?
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "SnowFire".