Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
No RfAs or RfBs reported by Cyberbot I since 1:57 6/23/2024 (UTC)
13 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Updated as needed. Last updated: 08:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 12 July 2024 |
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 12 July 2024 |
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | ( orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
Clarification request: Noleander | none | ( orig. case) | 11 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Durova | Motion | ( orig. case) | 4 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox | none | none | 10 July 2024 |
Clarification request: Desysoppings | none | none | 12 July 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
Most recent poster here: SMcCandlish ( talk)
Mini-toolbox:
{{em}}
for non-emphasis italics
[1] — and <em>
[2]{{
ref info|Manx cat|style=float:right}}
(\r\n|\r|\n)
Good article nominees
Other:
As of
2024-07-08 , SMcCandlish is Active.
|
|
|
Extended content
|
---|
Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sad...How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part. [3]; info about making records: [4]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding: [5]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991 wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls: No5 Balls.html. Fences& Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed? There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth ( talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
You had previously asked that protection be lowered on WP:MEDMOS which was not done at that time. I have just unprotected the page and so if you have routine update edits to make you should now be able to do so. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
@ SMcCandlish: I stumbled upon ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects and there are ~100 pages whose pages have been moved, but the editnotices are still targeted to the redirect page. Seems like a great, and sort of fun, WikiGnoming activity for a template editor such as yourself. I'd do it, but I'm not a template editor. Not sure if that's really your thing, though. ;-) Cheers,
|
Extended content
|
---|
Don't forget to deal with: Template talk:Cquote#Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2020. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
Not sure the ping went through, so noting here. Just spotted where a now-blocked user moved a bunch of animal breed articles back to parenthetical disambiguation from natural disambiguation. As they did it in October and I'm only catching it now, I only moved back two just in case there was some kind of consensus change. The equine ones are definitely against project consensus, the rest are not my wheelhouse but I'm glad to comment. Talk:Campine_chicken#Here_we_go_again. Montanabw (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
|
FYI, it looks like your key has expired. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
de:Rapport (Textil) is an intersting approach, and we don't seem to have a corresponding sort of article. Something I might approach at some point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there. In 2020, you moved
Three-Fifths Compromise to
Three-fifths Compromise, with the edit summary
WP:HYPHEN (don't capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hypen it itself a proper name).
I have a question about that: are you certain WP:HYPHEN is saying "if what follows a hyphen is a proper noun" rather than "if the hyphenated compound is a proper noun"? If your interpretation of the wording is accurate, then I would propose that the exemption for "titles of published works" be extended to all proper nouns. In the case of the Three-Fifths Compromise, plenty of sources capitalize "fifths", including
AP,
NYT,
WaPo,
Forbes,
LA Times, and
Guardian, etc. This is also an outlier, as we have articles like
Coca-Cola ("cola" is not a proper noun),
Spider-Man ("man" is not a proper noun),
Quasi-War ("war" is not a proper noun),
Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("discrimination" is not a proper noun), etc.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Collapse-boxing a long thread so I don't have to keep scrolling past it
|
---|
|
The following rules apply to hyphenated terms appearing in a title capitalized in headline style [...]
- Always capitalize the first element.
- Capitalize any subsequent elements unless they are articles, prepositions, coordinating conjunctions ([...]), or such modifiers [...] following musical key symbols.
- If the first element is merely a prefix or combining form that could not stand by itself as a word (anti, pre, etc.), do not capitalize the second element unless it is a proper noun or proper adjective.
- Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number (twenty-one or twenty-first, etc.) or hyphenated simple fraction (two-thirds in two-thirds majority).
The examples that follow demonstrate the numbered rules [...]
- [...]
- Record-Breaking Borrowings from Medium-Sized Libraries (2)
- [...]
- Anti-intellectual Pursuits (3)
- A Two-Thirds Majority of Non-English-Speaking Representatives (3, 4)
- [...]
APA:
In title case, capitalize the following words in a title or heading:
- [...]
- major words, including the second part of hyphenated major words (e.g., "Self-Report," not "Self-report")
MLA:
When you copy an English-language title or subtitle [...] use title-style capitalization: capitalize the first word, the last word, and all principal words, including those that follow hyphens in compound terms.
[...]
Do not capitalize the word following a hyphenated prefix if the dictionary shows the prefix and word combined without a hyphen.
- Theodore Dwight Weld and the American Anti-slavery Society
AMA:
In titles, subtitles, and text headings, do not capitalize the second part of a hyphenated compound in the following instances:
If either part is a hyphenated prefix or suffix (see [...])
- Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Ankylosing Spondylitis
If both parts together constitute a single word (consult [...])
- Reliability of Health Information Obtained Through Online Searches for Self-injury [...]
- Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children
- [...]
However, if a compound is temporary or if both parts carry equal weight, capitalize both words.
- [...]
- Low-Level Activity
- Drug-Resistant Bacteria
- [...]
In titles, subtitles, and text headings, capitalize the first letter of a word that follows a lowercase (but not a capital) Greek letter (see [...]), a numeral ([...]), a symbol, a stand-alone capital letter, or an italicized organic chemistry prefix, [...]
AP makes no mention of capitalization after a hyphen, but " The Star-Spangled Banner" is given as an example of a title (which we also capitalize, would you look at that).
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@ InfiniteNexus: More research of the above sort is needed. To just dive in and do one bit of it, I find that MHRA Style Guide [15] has a ridiculously inconsistent rule to capitalize after a hyphen, even when it's a prefix that cannot stand alone, except when that prefix is specifically Re-. There is no rationale given for this weirdness. I think it would be worthwhile to look in other major style guides and see whether anything like a largely consistent pattern actually emerges. Your four American ones (at least two of which, APA and AMA, have been moving over time to be increasingly consistent with Chicago on many points) don't cover enough ground for us to be certain of this. And AMA is trying to be meaningful but failing dismally. "Short-term" and "low-level" are both the same kind of term; same goes for "self-injury" and "drug-resistant". They can all be split up without hyphens, without losing meaning: "A low level of drug resitance was observed over a short term in a study of patients admitted for self injury". (I guess this is what happens when medical people with no linguistics background try to write material about English-language structure and usage.) The unitary hyphenated compounds below cannot be split up this way (though some are sometimes colloquially written as hyphenless closed compounds: "knowhow" and "runnerup", but not "fatherinlaw").
Iff it turns out that there is a demonstrable lean across all major style guides, then we could probably encapsulate it with something simplified and easy to remember and apply, which might (more resesearch is needed) be something like:
In title case, capitalize after a hyphen when the compound is temporary (usually a multi-word modifier that would be written without hyphens if not used adjectivally): Real-Estate Demography, Remote-Control Operation, Common-Sense Guidelines. Do not capitalize after a hyphen if the term is a compound with:
- a prefix (Pre-eclampsia, Anti-establishment), unless what follows the hyphen is a proper name Neo-Aristotelian;
- a suffix (Dada-esque);
- a compound with a synergistic meaning separate from that of its parts and which is almost always hyphenated (Father-in-law, Know-how, Runner-up).
A construction like this would avoid AMA's categorical confusion; avoid highly debatable ideas like "constitute a single word", "if both parts carry equal weight", "principal words", "major words"; avoid "the dictionary" nonsense (there is no such thing as "the" dictionary, but lots of dictionaries which often conflict with each other and have different levels of prescriptive versus descriptive approach); and avoid nitpicky geekery no one is apt to care about, like musical key symbols and italicized organic chemistry prefixes (we should not address minutiae like that unless long-term dispute arises about it, per WP:CREEP and WP:MOSBLOAT).
However, I find the "the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number" very dubious, and same with "-century" constructions; I have seen many titles of things that use "Twenty-two", "Fifty-third", and "Fourth-century"; this is one of several cases that needs more investigation in more style guides. And in the end, we are not required to do what a loose preponderance of other style guides seem to lean toward, especially when they contradict each other as to details and rationales; they are just duly informative with regard to what we decide. But we do need to decide something, since the extant material at MOS:TITLES has a gap, and people are not agreeing on what fits inside it.
PS: Your "
The Star-Spangled Banner" is given as an example of a title (which we also capitalize, would you look at that)
smirking isn't constructive. You know as well as I do that WP content is not a source, and that editors doing stylistically questionable things at a particluar article has nothing to do with whether a style rule we have should be changed. More to the point, the style guides you quoted are not in agreement on it, and AMA for one would have it as "The Star-spangled Banner" because "star-spangled" is not a temporary compound but a poetic 18th-century neologism that is a unitary term and appears to have nearly no existence without the hyphen. MLA would also lower-case "-spangled" because of its dictionary rule
[16]. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Applause! Now tell me how to get round wp:CITEVAR objections like this one: Talk:Eric Gill/Archive 1#Proposal to change citations of McCarthy's books to use harvard referencing and Talk:Eric Gill/Archive 1#Page number citations are expected when the source is a substantial book. I had hoped to get the Eric Gill article up to GA standard but I am too much of a secret typographer to put my name to a GAN, given its current spider-crawled-in-the-ink appearance. Sigh. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref>Smith 2023, p. 7.</ref>
", or the templated equivalents "This is a claim.<ref>{{harv|Smith|2023|p=7}}</ref>
", or "This is a claim.{{sfn|Smith|2023|p=7}}
". It's actually possible that 14GTR was literally opposed to ever including page numbers in any form, in which case his argument has no
WP:P&G legs to stand on and should just be ignored.Sudden flash of possible insight: A strong case can be made that because the community did clearly deprecate inline parenthetical referencing in 2020 (
WP:PAREN), and the rationale for doing so was its reading-flow disruptiveness, not the fact that round-bracket characters were involved, this actually translates automatically to a deprecation of {{
Rp}}
as well. It is simply another format for doing inline parenthetical referencing (its own documentation states explicitly that it's an adaptation from "full Harvard referencing and AMA style", though ultimately this is me quoting myself), just with fewer details and using superscript and colon, instead of more details with round brackets and no superscript or colon. That is, the deprecation is of citations that are inline and
parenthetical, not inline and using what Americans call parentheses (round brackets). So, replacing "This is a claim (Smith 2023, p. 7)." but retaining "This is a claim<ref>Smith 2023.</ref>{{Rp|7}}
" to produce "This is a claim.[1]:7" is simply defying that site-wide consensus by still putting part of the citation (page numbers or other in-source locations) inline parenthetically – especially given that the template can be used to produce things like "This is a claim.[1]:viii–xiv, 7–9, 12, and back cover". Indeed,
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful already includes "converting
parenthetical referencing to an acceptable referencing style". So, you could actually try that argument right now in doing cleanup of {{
Rp}}
.Because of the "let chaos reign" stupidity that is
WP:CITEVAR, some people are probably apt to try to argue against this, but I think their case will be weak and easily deflated. That said, probably the only path to total cleanup is going to be really fully documenting how to convert {{
Rp}}
into other formats, and why it is a good idea, and why {{Rp}}
is bad, and then have a follow-up RfC or TfD to formally deprecate {{Rp}}
and mandate its replacement (mostly by AWB and sometimes even by bots for simple cases), so that it is no longer considered a valid "citation style" for CITEVAR purposes, no question about it. And I think the work in doing that documentation is going to be in my lap, though I'm not over-eager to wade into it right this second. It gives me a headache just thinking about it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
, at
User:SMcCandlish/Replacement of Template:Rp. Still needs some more info in it, and proofreading for any markup errors that mess up any of the code examples. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
09:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Update: This is going very slowly, but I'm committed to working on it. It's going to require a bunch of very well-tested regular expressions, used in series in a JS user script, to catch and clean up a large number of content use cases, so that it produces uniform citation formatting (and without breaking anything). My earlier-documented work toward that at the page mentioned above has already been surpassed, in code I'm developing off-site. I'll start building the regexes I'm working on into a JavaScript pretty soon and start testing that against real content and refining it. After it reliably works for all valid and most sane but invalid test cases, then we'll be able to do search–replace operations against {{
rp}}
that will have predictable results with minimal errors. This is going to be a big project. It was more difficult than I expected because XML syntax (much less XML mixed with a {{...}}
syntax!) is incredibly difficult to parse accurately with regex (or anything else for that matter) reliably. I've been using advanced tools like regex101.com with complex blobs of valid and invalid test-case input, and using ChatGPT to try to work out particularly thorny matching failures, and so on. As an example, just one of the regexes developed so far looks like <ref\s+name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))\s*(?:(\/)|)>
, and even this cannot yet handle <ref name=foo group=bar>
to normalize the name=
part, only to avoid breaking a ref that has a group=
part (and it does not do anything to normalize the latter part yet, only the former). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref group="bar's > / bar" extends=baz name='foos > / foo' follow="quux quux" />
(and some of the code it's accounting for is only in the beta of
mw:Help:Cite and not deployed on en.WP yet), though this one regex only fixes up the name=
parameter; other passes with similar regexes would handle other attributes like group=
to normalize their formatting. Then another pass to fix spacing that shouldn't exist between citations. And so on. And of course a pass to replace {{
rp}}
with {{
sfnp}}
or whatever. Like I say, a multi-step process that'll be done by using the regexes in JS. The regex in question is now the monstrous <ref\s+((?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!name\s*=).)*)?name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))(\s+(?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>).)*)*\s*(?:(\/)|)>
. I'm suprised I pulled this off. Its one failure is that it can't gracefully handle the XML-valid (but technically ref-invalid) form name='foo "bar" baz'
(single-quoted value with nested double quotes) or the completely invalid name="foo "bar" baz">
; that's something that'll need to be handled by an earlier cleanup pass that looks just for those specific problems. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
<
ref>
attributes, as well as > inside quoted attributes after name=
.
name
with or without other attributes present) is: <ref\s+((?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!name\s*=)[\s\S])*)?name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))(\s+(?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!\s*\/>|"\s*>|'\s*>)[\s\S])*)*\s*(?:(\/)|)>
<ref group=
"bar's > / bar"
extends=
baz
name=
'
foos > / foo
'
follow=
"quux > quux"
/>
<
syntaxhighlight>
can't deal with the above, but what I'm writing can. This one just cleans up name
(to name="foos > / foo"
from the above mess, and gets rid of the line break before the closing />
while we're at it); similar regexes in later passes will deal with group
, etc., then eventually {{
rp}}
replacement. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC){{#tag:ref |Citation content here. |name=... |group=... |follow=... |extends=...}}
(with parameters in various order and with or without linebreaks and extraneous spacing). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Have you seen Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 92#Automating conversion of REF-plus-Rp to Sfn((m)p)? Do you want to launch a teaser trailer? Your call. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Possibly telling people how to write harv citations is out of scope but I thought I should flag this one for you to include or ignore, your call. I've only just found the {{ref={{sfnref|blah blah}} }} facility and it is a lot more convenient that adding first=/last= to each and every name, just so you can write {{sfnp|last1|last2|last3|last4|2024}}. Here is a test example:
Up to you. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
|vauthors=
in the documentation and scripting eventually. But |vauthors=
should not be used except in an article entirely done in Vancouver-style references (or it's against
WP:CITESTYLE's instructions to use a consistent referencing style). It's a poor idea to use that style in the first place because it outputs less-useful author metadata, and much more importantly is harder to parse for readers (it is less clear that something like "Tan LH" is an individual's name than "Tan, L. H." that matches the rest of our initials formatting and other name handling, most especially when "Tan LH" appears in an article otherwise using citations that output "Tan, L. H."), and it's more error-prone for editors because this weird name formatting must be done exactly perfectly in that parameter. Another serious fault with it is that we often actually know complete author names (and these can be quite helpful in distinguishing authors and even in finding the source in the first place if it's something without a free-to-read URL or DOI), but |vauthors=
forces us to drop most of the name information we already have; it's a disservice to readers and to editors doing verification work. Any time I run into a |vauthors=
in an article that is not consistently in Vanc style, I replace it with a set of |last1=
|first1=
... (unless I'm in a big hurry or something), often with more complete author names.Using |ref={{
sfnref|...}}
a.k.a. |ref={{
harvid|..}}
isn't dependent in any way on |vauthors=
.Also, the Lua behind the citation templates can already parse the names inside |vauthors=
(if they were done right) and use them with {{
sfnp}}
, {{
harvp}}
, etc., directly. If we remove the |ref={{
sfnref|Wang ''et al''|2015}}
from your example:
Here is a claim in the article. [1]
Wang T, Mo L, Mo C, Tan LH, Cant JS, Zhong L, Cupchik G (June 2015). "Is moral beauty different from facial beauty? Evidence from an fMRI study". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 10 (6): 814–23. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu123. PMC 4448025. PMID 25298010.
Just using the automated {{
sfnp|Wang|Mo|Mo|Tan|2015}}
is clearer and easier than using a |ref={{
sfnref|Wang ''et al''|2015}}
along with {{
sfnp|Wang ''et al''|2015}}
. And there doesn't seem to be a consensus that "et al." should be italicized as Latin, because it is so assimilated into English, like "i.e." and "e.g."; I don't think any of our citation templates italicize it. (But it should have a "." after it, italicized or not, even in British usage, since it's a truncation abbreviation, of et alia.) Even without the italics, just using the automated {{
sfnp|Wang|Mo|Mo|Tan|2015}}
is still clearer and easier than using a |ref={{
sfnref|Wang et al.|2015}}
along with {{
sfnp|Wang et al.|2015}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
|first1= last1= first2= last2=
etc. Generally I avoid using it when creating a citation except when the authors are Chinese or Japanese but the article is in English: how do I know if it is last=Mao first=Tse Tung or vice versa? I confess to using it too when ten authors are listed, for example on IPCC papers.) --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
, but I'm a little down on that because we had more author information and doing that deleted it. I think I'll whip up a script to convert from vauthors to last/first, at least for my own convenience, but probably after doing this big ref-cleaner and rp-replacer job first.As for Asian names, I would guess just go by what the publication says; if it's "Chaudhary, C.; Richardson, A. J.; ...", and had a "Hua, X." or rarely but sometimes in Sinological material "Hua X" with no comma, in the author list, that already indicates the family-name order. But if the paper's author list started with "Chetan Chaudhary, Abigail Richardson, ..." and included something like "Hua Xiang" then it could be ambiguous; did they keep the same order, or give the Chinese names in surname-first order? I'm not sure vauthors would help here, since you wouldn't be sure whether to use "Hua X" or "Xiang H". Some familiarity with East Asian naming patterns helps. A name like "Hua Xhiangshu" or "Hua Xhian-shu" or "Hua Xiang-Shu" (orthography varies) would be family-name-first. People with more experience at it than I have can figure out Japanese names just by familiarity with which are usually given and which family names. Korean I'm generally at a loss with, unless it follows the Chinese pattern ("Lee Joon-gi" or "Lee Joon-Gi" or "Lee Joongi" is surname-first). It helps a little that a few Korean family names are overwhelmingly common, like Park/Pak/Paik, Lee/Li, Jun/Joon/June, Song/Sung, and Kim. When I'm unsure, I usually just Google around for other works by the same person until I can figure it out. If I could not at all, I would probably do |author4=Hua Xiang
using the name order I had found (at all or most commonly) and leave it for someone with language/culture-specific experience to figure it out later. Maybe put in an HTML comment to this effect. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
PS: As I understand it, the vauthors to sfnp/harvp "translation" uses the author names up to the first four. I'm not sure what happens when someone has a main cite with |vauthors=Chaudhary C, Richardson AJ, Hua X
|display-authors=etal
. I'm not sure if the latter is just a visual injection of "et al.", or whether it counts as a fourth author name and would require {{
sfnp|Chaudhary|Richardson|Hua|et al.|2023}}
. I suspect not, but something to test in a sandbox. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
S, I know you're into games and their capitalizations, so take a look at List of abstract strategy games. I downcased a whole bunch of games listed there already, but there are a few I'm not sure what to do about, such as Connect Four, that might be trademarks, or might be generic. Do you have any insights or advice on those? Dicklyon ( talk) 07:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
five-field {{lang|ko-Latn|kono}}
) – per
MOS:HYPHEN and
MOS:FOREIGN. The parent article
gonu has similar issues. This is the kind of stuff
MOS:GAMECAPS is specifically aiming to address (along with overcapitalization of things like sports, folk dances, sport/dance moves and techniques, game pieces, musical instruments, etc.). For at least the immediate future, we have one weird exception, for
go (game), which is presently being rendered "Go", but obviously really should be go ({{
lang|zh-Latn|go}}
), but we would need another RfC to undo the previous one that arrived at "Go" through what seems to be a
WP:SSF-based
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. But in no way is "Go" some kind of "capitalize all Asian folk games" excuse. So, kono/gonu. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish, I noticed that you are part of the category of Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions [17]. I have been working on Dahua Technology and am hoping you may be interested in reviewing an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding specific terminology used in the article. I'd be grateful for your feedback and assistance in implementing the edits as you see fit. Thank you, Caitlyn23 ( talk) 19:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I've done a little bit of work on Artistic billiards over the last couple days - I'd never seen a match, but recently found a video on YouTube and it's very enjoyable! Shame it is so hard to find a detailed video. I've added some info from Trick Shot about Artistic Pool, but I'm not super familiar with the subject. Is there any funky sourcing outside of Shamos's book about these terms, Google isn't super helpful. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Main|Trickshot#Artistic pool}}
at the top of it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
SMcCandlish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk)
14:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe ( talk) 14:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Do you know if Speed pool is actually a thing? It's been unsourced for a decade and I couldn't find much about it aside from a few tournaments of the same name. Seems non-notable to me, but thought I'd check first. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Something to deal with quickly:
Need to stop putting this off; will probably only take 10 minutes.
Ongoing:
Several things appear to have stalled out over the holidays:
Some of these may need to be restarted as RfCs.
See also:
Forgot about this one for a long time (need to merge the NC material out of MOS:COMICS into WP:NCCOMICS):
An article still using deprecated
WP:PARENTHETICAL referencing of the {{
harv}}
style to use as a cleanup testbed:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. You'll see that my edit was a typo, as I ' Claimed ', as inexpicably I'd typed ' qs ', not ' Vide ', and corrected it.
I'd say that this being an online dictionary, people who read it, by their nature, have an interest in what they don't understand; that not to use words, (though it wasn't my intention), that '...more than a few...' (sic) understand should be persuasive only if we weren't writing in English: to use that for a guide now, (not that that's contravening any Wikipaedia rule), should mean that at some past time somebody declared it is one, anyway; and it must have been sometime between one of the forms of Celtic speech used in Britain and today, since we're using English, here; words which, at one time, '...not more than a few...' knew, meaning we might still be uding Anglo-Saxon. So when did excluding the unfamiliar become a rule ? Dictionaries are still being published to explain both new and unfamiliar words; a pursuit disallowed, now, by this guide.
It's true I could have made ' Vide ' a link; but what's conversational for some is as abstuse as others' reasonings.
Yes, it was mentioned above ; but not all sections and sub-sections are read, and the re-emphasised words occupying the space of an old ink blot might very well, (for the majority, not ' The few ', who skip through what they read), have been the harmless ones that conveyed the distinction between tartan and dicing.
Anyway, regards to you. Heath St John ( talk) 19:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
see below|[[#History|below]]}}
or whatever, which produces output like ( ). The usual purpose of q.v. is to refer to a headword, such as is found in a
glossary; and vide is generally used in academic material to refer to a specific passage (and your use of it didn't provide such specificity). Anyway, the lead section at
Sillitoe tartan is now even clearer than it was, with the terminological quibbles consolidated, so there's little if any room of confusion any longer. PS: Wikipedia style for abbreviated Latinisms like "q.v." and "i.e." and "e.g." and "et al." is to use the dots, and the ones that are well-assimilated into non-specialist English don't take italics, while the more obscure ones like "q.v." and "p.m.v" and "op. cit." (lots of them are legalisms or academicisms) are italicized. "Et al." is actually an edge case with regard to the italics; there is or was recently a discussion open about this, though I forget where. (Frustrating, since I was going to comment in it.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! In the future, I hope you can take a beat and consider WP:AGF instead of implying that someone is busy pushing beans up their nose, as you did in this edit summary. There's already too much gatekeeping at the project, and I don't think you want to come off as doing that. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. In your archive Page-ception you have two paragraphs that outline ref= use as an alternative to Template:rp. Is that still current? Any chance there is a standalone description I can point out for others?
(I use rp primarily because it is much shorter. ref= has the same problem as sfn, additional points of failure. In <ref name=McNuttsIR2006/>{{rp|131}}</ref>
vs <ref>[[#McNuttsIR2006|McNuts, I. R. (2006)]], p. 131.</ref>
, the string "McNuts, I. R. (2006)]], p.
" isn't checked by reference failing.)
Johnjbarton (
talk)
19:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfnp}}
(which does not need a surrounding <
ref>...</ref>
), along with rare use of {{
harvp}}
inside <
ref>...</ref>
for cases that require additional annotations. The complicated |ref=Whatever 2023
and <ref name="Whatever2023">[[#Whatever 2023|Whatever (2023)]] ...</ref>
stuff I did at
Tartan and some other articles can all be replaced by those two templates for a leaner and less error-prone result.Is there some kind of case you're having an issue with? I might be able to help work it out.
The problem (or a problem) with {{
rp}}
is that it is a form of inline parenthetical referencing, which was
deprecated by community consensus entirely in 2022. It separates part of the citation data from the citation and clogs up the text. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
|ref=
twiddling. If it doesn't suit your needs, feel free to undo it of course (
WP:CITEVAR and all 'at). Some folks prefer to have the multi-cited sources be under their own subheading after ==References==
, such as ===Sources===
or ===Bibliography===
, instead of between {{
refbegin}}
and {{
refend}}
(or even both at once). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
<
references>...</references>
structure or an extended {{
reflist|...}}
tag, directly under ==References==
, each wrapped in <
ref>...</ref>
, but this strikes me as unnecessarily complicated. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)sfnp
can be mixed with <ref>
I'll try it.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
02:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
or whatever for every page at which it is cited. This really is about as good as it gets. The whole site seems to be moving this direction. PS: I used {{
sfnp}}
instead of {{
sfn}}
because it produces the same "(2018)" date output as the main citation templates; {{sfn}}
produces "2018" without the consistent parentheses/round-brackets, for no good reason. People only use {{
sfn}}
because it has a shorter name and they think it's "the default" or what is "normal", but it should really not be used unless the article has a citation style that is consistently using "2018" format, which is only possible if they're all non-templated, manually formatted citations, which is pretty much no longer done in any article on the system except old junk no one's touched since the 2000s. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{{sfnp | <last1*> | <last2> | <last3> | <last4> | <year*> | p= <page> | loc= <location> }}
{{cite}}
template correct? All of the parameters last1...year
are essentially an identifier forced to match a function of the cite template as far as I can tell.ref
because the name
only needs to match, the authors and date are only given one place. Seems to me that a solution where the point of citation entry is an arbitrary string and page number like rp
but which renders as the consensus desires would be nicer).
Johnjbarton (
talk)
16:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{{sfnp}}
is in
Template:Sfnp, in the "Possible issues" and "Implementation" sections.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC){{
sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|Le Fevre|2021|p=99|loc=footnote 7}}
.|loc=
parameter is optional and can also be used in place of instead of along with |p=
or its plural form |pp=
(those two are mutually exclusive with regard to each other): {{
sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|Le Fevre|2021|loc=errata sheet}}
{{Cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Amy B. |last2=Jones |first2=C. D. |last3=López-Garcia |first3=Carlos |last4=Le Fevre |first4=Jean-Paul |last5= ... |date=2021 ...}}
to match the above example.
{{Citation |last1=Chen |first1=Amy B. |last2=Jones |first2=C. D. |last3=López-Garcia |first3=Carlos |last4=Le Fevre |first4=Jean-Paul |last5= ... |date=2021 ...}}
{{
Citation}}
are inconsistent injections of this sort into CS1 articles; the number of articles consistently templated in CS2 is decreasing all the time).|vauthors=
mess, as long as it's actually coded in the proper format: {{Cite journal |vauthors=Chen AB, Jones CD, López-Garcia C, Le Fevre J-P, ... |date=2021 ...}}
|last1=
, etc., if |vauthors=
is encountered in a article that is not consistetly using
Vancouver-style citations, which is almost all of the cases at this point. (Few articles remain using Vancouver consistently, but editors who are fans of that style commonly go around wrongly injecting it into articles that do not use it, which is against
WP:CITESTYLE).|editor1-last=
, etc. as author names for this purpose if there is no |last1=
, etc. If there are one or more specified authors, then any editor names are ignored (they do not concatenate onto the author(s) list).|last=
, |author=
, and |author1=
(and the rare |author-last=
, |author1-last=
, and |author-last1=
) are all aliases of |last1=
, and so forth. |editor-last=
, |editor=
, |editor-last1=
, |editor1=
are all aliases of |editor1-last=
, and so on.{{
sfnp}}
, {{
harvp}}
, and all their variants.){{
sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|2021|p=32}}
will not work because |Le Fevre
is missing.|display-authors=etal
, to output "et al." after the last specified author name, is not detected or supported. If the citation is {{cite book |last=Adebayo |first=Mohamed |display-authors=etal |date=1997 ...}}
, this must be short-cited like {{
sfnp|Adebayo|1991|p=23}}
.|ref=
comes in. If you have {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ...}}
and {{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ...}}
, the solution is this: {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023a}} }}
and {{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023b}} }}
, each short-cited as {{sfnp|Tāwhiri|2023a}}
and {{snfp|Tāwhiri|2023b|p=42}}
, respectively.
{{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri, K.|2023}} }}
and {{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri, M.|2023}} }}
, each short-cited as {{sfnp|Tāwhiri, K.|2023}}
and {{snfp|Tāwhiri, M.|2023|p=42}}
, respectively. Doing both forms of disambiguation at once is not helpful. The name disambiguation is often helpful any time there are two authors by the same surname in the same article, even if the publication years do not collide.|year=
parameter: {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |year=2023a ...}}
, which would work with {{
sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023a}}
, but it pollutes the long-form citation's date ouput with an invalid year string: Tāwhiri, Koa (2022a) The
kluge to repair that was to do: {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |year=2023a |date=2023...}}
. But this is all just ridiculous awfulness, a case of the tail wagging the dog, the code forcing human editors to do confusing crap that abuses and juggles around template parameters for side purposes that don't match their citation-information intent. Worse, non-expert editors are apt to think that |year=2023a
|date=2023
is a typo and "fix" it to just |date=2023
, thereby breaking short cites to that source. The |ref=
parameter was introduced to make such easily broken hoop-jumping unnecessary. Instances of |
, with or without the compensating |date=2023
should be replaced with |date=2023
and an {{
sfnref}}
(also often called by the alias {{
harvid}}
) inside a {{
ref}}
. NB: Using |date=
instead of |year=
is universally better, because |date=
also handles bare years along with fuller dates, and editors who encounter a |year=2023
but see a full date in the cited work when verifying it are apt to improve the citation by giving the full date; |year=
is simply obsolete.|ref={{
sfnref|...}}
. If you have {{cite report |editor1-last=Yi |editor1-first=Xiu-Yīng |editor2=Committee on Reptile and Amphbian Nomenclature |date=2023 |publisher=World Herptological Society ...}}
, you can add |ref={{sfnref|Yi|CRAN|2015}}
, and cite it as, e.g., {{sfnp|Yi|CRAN|2015}}
.{{
Vcite journal}}
, {{
Vcite journal}}
, {{
Vcite book}}
, etc.), which are rare but still occationally found, cannot be used at all with {{
sfnp}}
, etc., without adding |ref={{sfnref|...}}
to them. Yet another reason to not use that citation style.{{
sfnp}}
and related templates have nothing to do with what is in <
ref name="...">
, only the surnames specified inside the citation template. If you have <ref name="DeBroglieMacDuff2019">{{cite web |last1=De Broglie |first1=Matt |last2=MacDuff Samuelson |first2=Jennifer B. |date=2019 ...}}
, this would be short-cited like {{
sfnp|De Broglie|MacDuff Samuelson|2019}}
.
<ref name="DeBroglie & MacDuff Samuelson 2019">
. Note that the quotation marks are mandatory because of spaces and non-alphanumeric ASCII characters. The lazy practice of doing <ref name=DeBMacDS2019>
with very simple ref names that do not contain spaces, punctuation, or other special characters is a terrible idea because someone else is reasonably likely to clean up such messy refs later and may forget the quotation marks and break the citation. Even doing <ref name=DeB-MacDS-2019>
is technically invalid markup, though few editors realize it (MW seems to generally handle it okay, but this cannot be guaranteed in future versions because it's against
the documented requirements of <
ref>
. Every time it is encountered, <ref name=foo>
should be converted to <ref name="foo">
(though as part of a more substantive edit per
WP:COSMETICBOT).Regarding "a solution where the point of citation entry is an arbitrary string and page number like rp
but which renders as the consensus desires would be nicer", I'm not sure that's technically feasible to do within this wiki (but see note below about future features of <
ref>
). Something I could ponder on. If it were doable, I think we would have simply already replaced {{
rp}}
's functionality in situ. There might in theory be some way to do something like Here is some article text.{{magicref|Yamamoto2001|p=27}}
, where the {{magicref}}
template (actually
Lua module – this would certainly have to be done with a complicated Lua program, not with normal template code) matched Yamamoto2001
to a <ref name="Yamamoto2001">{{cite book |last=Yamamoto |first=Sumiko |date=2001 ...}}</ref>
probably defined in a
WP:LDR block at the bottom of the page, and then extracted the necessary details from the long-form citation in essentially the same way that {{
sfnp}}
does, and generated a similar short citation. This would be "brittle" in that if anyone renamed the <
ref>
's name
the {{magicref}}
would break. It also has the issue that, as with {{snfp}}
/{{harvp}}
, it would be generally desirable to put the full-form citation at the bottom of the page. If there were community appetite for this, someone else would have to implement it, because I can't Lua-code may way out of a paper bag.
If this is really just about speed/ease of entry, an interim approach but basically a messy one is to just put the full-length citation into the article body at first citation of the source. The templates really don't care where they "live". It would not technically be invalid to do Here is some article text.<ref>{{cite book |last=Adebayo |first=Mohamed |display-authors=etal |date=1997 |page=123 ...}}</ref> ... This is more article text much later.{{sfnp|Adebayo|1997|pp=289–290}}
It's still citing sources, and doing it inline, just not in an ideal way (because the long citation has a page number "fixed" in it, and it will be mixed into the main <
references>
or {{
reflist}}
output. If you did this at a new article, no one would likely care, but if you did it at an article with already-established citation style someone might object to it as a change in citation style, or at least change it to put the long cite at the bottom and without an permanently embedded page number.
Two further notes:
{{rp}}
replacement guide, with user script tools for making it easier (the scripting requires a boatload of testing and tweaking because parsing XML mixed in with {{...}}
markup using
JavaScript and
regex is very difficult, even when just parsing for a single <
ref>
tag and its limited parameters like name=
and group=
).<
ref>
tag itself is (allegedly and very slowly) coming. The format will look like <ref extends="Miller 2019">Miller (2019), p. 42.</ref>
, and such a short cite will have a clickable ↑ that links to the full citation (hopefully they'll pick another character, since in many cases the full cite might be below all the <
references>
/{{
reflist}}
output, not higher up inside that section). It's already in beta testing, and the preview documentation is at
mw:Help:Cite#Citing different parts of the same source. It could be years before we get this functionality, though. MW development is slow, and deployment to here even slower. That feature was first documented as being in beta on 2 December 2019
[20]! FFS.— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
cite
templates could be bot-moved to Sources/References/Notes.
{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |last2=Jones ... |date=2021 ... |ref={{sfnref|Smith et al.|2021}} }}
then use {{sfnp|Smith et al.|2021|p=92}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Howdy. I believe Dicklyon respects you greatly & not just because you support his 'lower case' stance. Maybe, if you were to 'suggest' directly to him, that he stop making such page moves while a related RFC is on going? he'll comply. I know it's not your responsibility to do that. But, it might help prevent Dicklyon from being reported by an editor (not me) to WP:ANI. GoodDay ( talk) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
VPPOL has always been the "once it is decided here, there is no longer a question to keep asking" venue (unless something changes later and WP:CCC might apply so the question should be asked again). We have no broader-input venue for assessing community consensus. The entire purpose of it is to get as broad as possible a range of input on a question of P&G interpretation, application, or change, especially when it may affect a substantial number of articles and/or the question is mired in a tug-of-war between two opposing viewpoints without sufficent input from middle-ground Wikipedians who are not partisans in the dispute. It is completely routine to use RfC or other processes to arrive at decisions that might otherwise be handled at RM, if RM is not a good process for it in that particular case. (Just one of numerous examples: templates are often renamed via multi-template TfDs in which various templates need to be deleted, some merged, and one or more renamed. See also other examples already posted in the VPPOL discussion. There are many more.) Your notion that the only possible way to arrive at article titling decisions is through an RM is simply patently false. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Doing it "many months after the close" would actually be preferable, for the same reason we strongly discourage re-opening the same RM shortly after it closed with no consenus, or re-opening the same RfC shortly after it came to no consensus. No one [or, no one who should get their battleground wish granted!] wants to continue the same unproductive discussion that recently failed. What we do want to see is either quickly a different, refining discussion that may get past the original roadblock, or much later a re-asking of the same question to see if consensus can be reached among a different pool of presently-active editors. Or, for that matter, asking the variant question but later instead of soon. There is no bureaucracy to follow here.
PS: The reason MRV exists is because it is a (not the only) possible way of questioning a closure result, by asking for review of it by univolved admins (and doing so at WP:AN is still how this is usually done; the RM-related ones were just so frequent that the process was spun off to its own noticeboard like WP:DRV was). Its existence does not mean that the community in an even broader venue is somehow prohibited from examining the question, e.g. at VPPOL. Just think about the implications of that idea for a moment. Name any other decision-making of any kind in which admins get to make up their own "micro-consensus" decision, and the community cannot discuss much less override or move past it. (I'll save you the trouble: it does not exist, not even for hardcore things like indefinite block decisions. Hell, even WP:ARBPOL is subject to community consesus review and revision.) It's also important that MRV exists for one purpose and one only: to determine whether the closer erred in summarizing the RM debate they closed (in this case a decision of "no consensus"). It is expressly not for re-examining any (or adding additional) rationales for whether pages should move and to what names. But the VPPOL discussion is about exactly that (it is a "mega-RM" in a broader venue than RM makes possible), based on what P&G arguments and sourcing apply.
PPS: Yet another example of how other processes than RM are used to arrive at article titles: if an RfC about a rule change or a new rule comes to a clear consensus, then pages are simply manually moved (or RM/TRed if blocked by an edited redirect) to comply with it. That's how the species over-capitalization mess was cleaned up. It required no additional RMs at all (though in theory some could have come up if some particular instance had been disputed). It's especially interesting that: a) the lower-case decision was reached by RM in the first place, b) MRV upheld it as not a faulty close, and c) the community re-examined the question via RfC (based on the claim of upper-casing fans that the RM and MRV had an insufficient consensus level). It's an exactly parallel case, other than it trying to overturn a disliked consensus instead of trying to resolve a failure to come to consensus. You were around for all of that, but did not raise any such bogus "wrong venue" or "wrong process" claims. It's obvious why: because those trying to use the RfC to overturn an RM decision were trying to get an exception from MoS (and AT and NCCAPS), and you consistently support topical "rebellion", ignoring all policy and other considerations to champion the cause of subject- and wikiproject-specific special pleading for exceptions even when they provably cannot be justified by usage in sources independent of the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your contributions on the discussion of "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best of all-time/his (or her) generation" in WT:MOS#MOS:PUFFERY. How is consensus on that page determined as there doesn't appear to have been any activity for over 10 days now? RevertBob ( talk) 20:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have a weird request that basically involves asking for further context on a comment you wrote in this 2017 RfC. The reason I'm asking you in particular is because as far as I can tell, you are the only one who mentioned school districts at all in that discussion that is still an active editor here.
So, the the story starts with me coming across a school district article that likely would not meet GNG and looking at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. There it says: "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography).
I have no idea what the orgin of this consensus is (or if there ever was one). Anyways, I noticed that this kind of conflicted with what is actually stated at
WP:GEOLAND. So I tried to create an RfC a few months ago. You can read it at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#School districts and GEOLAND. A bunch of people thought my RfC was unclear or weren't sure if there was anything I was trying to change from the status quo... and I'd really just like to not be going in circles trying to understand what happened. As far as I can tell, this is the only RfC that's ever really had anything to do specifically with school districts. So I'd really appreciate it if you could prove me wrong? I'm not trying to change what happened, I just want to understand why this has been such a source of confusion.
Clovermoss🍀
(talk)
21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
"Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).That's WP:NGEO for short.
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.Further down, WP:NGEO states:
Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.School districts are "legally recognized", being formally established governmental jurisdictions/bodies for a specific purpose. But I'm not personally sure that they really constitute "places" in the sense meant here, especially given the "census tracts" caveat that follows; a school district is much, much more like a census tract than it is like a village or even a named neighborhood. I would think that school districts would actually be approached as organizations (governmental bodies, specifically), and thus subject to WP:NORG (in fact, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES specifically says
The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are [ WP:N and WP:NORG]. School districts are "educational institutions" (they were legally instituted, and they entirely pertain to education). WP:NORG also explicitly covers schools, and it also covers divisions of municipal governments (as a subset of divisions of organizations), and all organizations generally, though it does not happen to mention school districts in particular. Pertinent material from NORG, by sectional shortcut:
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.) If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists .... "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.
Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.It is very difficult to interpret this as not also applying to school districts, especially since the recommendation is to merge NN schools into articles on the local area (town, etc.) instead, not to the school district, though I would do the latter if the district were notable, as being a more pertinent and specific target.
Local units of larger organizations: In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. If the parent article grows to the point where information needs to be split off to a new article, remember that when you split off an article about a local chapter, the local chapter itself must comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, without reference to the notability of the parent organization. Take care not to split off a section that would be considered non-notable on its own.This was written clumsily with fraternities in mind, but it is not actually limite dto them, and there is no reason this would not apply also to school districts, which are highly local units of a larger city government organization.
Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. ... Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization.This clearly includes "division, departments, and other sub-units", and is not specific to any particular organization type, so would include municipal governments.
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)This only mentions schools specifically, but the reasoning in it is not a new rule, it is an explication of existing rules and how they already apply, and they do already apply to school districts as well.
In short, I think this is cause for another RfC, to remove the incorrect presumptive-notability claim from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and to have districts treated exactly the same as any other local subdivision of any (in this case governmental) organization. If that were repaired, some other advice would have to be tweaked, to suggest merging non-notable schools to notable school districts or to the city/town article in the absence of one of the former, because a lot of school districts (probably most of them) are non-notable and should themselves merge to cities/towns in a subsection under government.
The previous RfC appears to have flopped because it did not provide enough of the contextual material. What I would recommend is using the material above (neutralizing some of my editorial arguments) in a collapse box like {{
collapse top|left=y|Pertinent guideline and other material:}}
... {{
collapse bottom}}
(each of those templates has to be on it own line). Then lay out an RfC proposition something like the following:
The essay WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES claims that school districts are presumptively notable as "populated places", on the grounds of WP:GEOLAND (in WP:NGEO). However, that guideline specifically excludes things like census tracts that are not typically considered places in the usual sense, and this could also apply to school districts. Meanwhile, school districts are organizations (divisions of larger municipal governments), much more than they are places, and appear to be subject to the guideline WP:NORG, as are schools and municipal governments themselves. (Specifically, WP:ORGSIG and WP:NONPROFIT in several parts appear directly applicable to districts, along with the intent behind WP:NSCHOOL.) The essay's wording appears to be a WP:POLICYFORK, which needs resolution one way or another.
Options for addressing the issue:
[Do the collapse box of guideline and essay quotations here.]
NB: A previous RfC on this was opened in December 2023, but closed as too unclearly worded to reach a consensus.
[Sig here]
[Then create a "Comments (school districts)" and a "Discussion (school districts)" subsection, disambiguated from other such sections on the VPPOL page.]it is not necessary to have a school district article in order to capture all the schools in a given area: they could be captured under another geographical article, such as the local town or city; and further that:
common sense dictates that when a school district that otherwise does not merit an article more or less covers the same area as a town or city, or even a county or township, both the district & its schools should then be captured in that article."
So, I guess that's doing most of the work already, though I don't think I want to "run" this one myself. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a view on the hyphenation of "subantarctic" or is there anything I've missed in the MoS? List of Antarctic and subantarctic islands and Subantarctic are internally inconsistent. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@
Thebiguglyalien,
Snow Rise, and
Levivich:
I'd forgotten about it, but what was discussed at some length at "
User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 22#Advice going forward on WikiProject Years" shouldn't be forgotten, and is worth developing further. Though that discussion was most immediately about
WP:YEARS and "their" articles,
WP:ITN, and a few other specifics, what Snow Rise said there (in part paraphrasing Levivich) resonantes strongly and is broadly applicable: [T]hese are en.Wikipedia articles at the end of the day, and whatever their unique format and considerations, they are governed by the same content policies as any other user-facing content .... [T]he entire reason we have an objective,
WEIGHT-based standard is to prevent the idiosyncratic perceptions of the "importance" of a topic ... to prevent not just bias in our content, but also the introduction of insurmountable discord into the process of consensus building when such a subjective standard [as what a topical wikiproject might subjectively prefer] is utilized. ... [T]his is primarily a behavioural issue. ... I am certain that any solution has to be based on our existing
RS/WEIGHT standards. It's simply the only approach that can be adopted on this project without the gears constantly locking up beyond our ability to repair. [Failure to apply P&G across topics evenly is] untethering our process from an objective standard and inviting our editors to do what they presently are disallowed from doing: basing content on their own assessments of what is actually "important" ....
.
All of that is central to the whole problem of "topical rebellions" against our WP:P&G (which rapidly spill into throwing WP:CIV and WP:NPA out the window), and some other walled-garden issues (ITN, DYK, FAC, and several others come to mind). These policy observations apply well beyond the core content policies themselves, including to guidelines on titles, style questions, notabilty, and other considerations, except where a subject has its own guideline-level (not WP:PROJPAGE essay) naming conventions page, MoS page, subject notability guideline or whatever (and some of those need re-examination and revision; much of their text dates to the 2000s, and is often problematic, especially with regard to topics that don't get a lot of editorial attention; but that'll be an issue for another time). The matter recently got raised again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#General Sanctions (Darts), a very typical case where a niche subject with long-term "this is our topic" editors collide with other editors and it turns into a long-term battleground.
As I recall from the original discussion, the first idea was to revise WP:PROJPAGE, but it's not checked all that often, is not a policy, and is aimed only at wikiprojects' output, so it doesn't address topical PoV-pushing and walled-garden behavior by factions or tagteams that are not wikiprojects, nor individuals with this kind of bent. So, the idea after that was to revise WP:CONLEVEL with a WP:CONVENUE add-on (usurping the WP:CONVENUE shortcut from my essay, which may be useful for some points/wording, along with WP:PROJPAGE). Thebiguglyalien drafted something in a sandbox here, and Snow Rise had some quibbles with it (one of which got mentioned at the thread linked up top), but everyone got busy and it fell by the wayside. For my part, I think much of that draft is correct, but it over-states a few things, and glosses over a few others, and is about 10× too long; the whole concept needs to be compressed into a couple of concise sentences, a single paragraph; the community would not be willing to accept a large and complex policy addition, per the WP:CREEP principle.
I'm not certain how to proceed, but think this should proceed, even if takes some time and work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
no discrete group of editors gets to make and enforce rules outside of established process, and thereby sidestep the normal community vetting of proposed guidelines– Snow Rise's summary of what we want to accomplish
{{
Historical}}
, or updated to ecapsulate actual current best practice in the topic); or they are not innocuous and contain conflicts with other P&G, in which case they need to be repaired (whether actively followed or not), and that might entail RfCs and even a new
WP:PROPOSAL process (a result of which might be {{
Rejected}}
). There are also a lot of
WP:PROJPAGE essays, in which various wikiproject try to assert style (most often section layout) preferences, but these are mostly ignored. Where they are not and also are not problematic, they should be make into MoS subpages instead of wikiproject style-advice essays.The vast majority of the "defy a guideline I don't like" disruption is against some particular provision in a central guideline, like MOS:CAPS and its WP:NCCAPS derivative, or sometimes worse, like ignoring aspects of core content policy to push agendas in particular topics (WWII/Nazis/Jews in Eastern Europe; various fringe or religion subjects; a number hot-button topics in Western and especially American politics; etc.). The topical "guidelines" like MOS:PAK and MOS:COMICS and WP:NCPARTY and WP:NEVENTS are rarely the source of the problem.
But, sure, various pages with {{
Guideline}}
on them probably need community review for updating (and often paring) or even for demotion to essays or {{
Historical}}
, especially when they represent hardly any input from anyone and/or they are out-of-step with consensus practice. It's not really clear how to go about this the best way. Generally it's likely to be a matter of
WP:VPPOL referenda, but is apt to cause significant drama, especially if the "guideline" in question is the product of a wikiproject and they happen to like it. One such demotion was "
WP:Manual of Style/Computing", which was principally authored by only two or three editors, and was basically a pile of opinated
WP:CREEP that didn't serve an encyclopedia-building need. Contrast with
WP:Manual of Style/Computer science which dated to the same era (as a PROJPAGE) and recently passed a PROPOSAL to become part of MoS; that was a page with significantly more community input, by people who knew better what they were talking about, to address actual encyc.-writing needs instead of impose personal-preference style pecadilloes, and subject to considerable revision after community input. Big difference. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, don't you think "château" is a well assimilated loanword? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 13:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Why did you want the Walt Disney Company to move to Disney in the first place? While it is a common name, it is not the only important Disney. You know Walt Disney himself, right? Please read the guidelines, think, and learn from your actions. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
About|the company|the company founder|Walt Disney}}
would resolve any navigational issue. There's a weird fandom-driven "local consensus" happening at that page to defy
WP:AT policy and the
WP:DAB guideline. It's silly (most especially since
Disney still redirects straight to the company despite that recent discussion). This case not any different from
Heinz. The company, H. J. Heinz Company, formerly Heinz Noble & Company, now a subsidiary and brand of larger company
Kraft Heinz after a 2015 merger, is the PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. The COMMONNAME of the company-cum-brand is simply Heinz, and the founder,
Henry J. Heinz is notable and would be referred to on second mention in a biographical context simply as "Heinz".
Heinz doesn't even have a disambiguation hatnote pointing to him, though it could have one; it was probably thought unnecessary since he is mentioned and linked in the first line of the article. If you went and proposed moving
Heinz to
H. J. Heinz Company,
Heinz (company),
Heinz (brand) or some other name, you'd be
WP:SNOW opposed because such a name would not fit WT:AT and WP:DAB requirements (see also
Talk:Heinz/Archives/2015#Requested move 26 March 2015). The difference is that Heinz, unlike Disney, doesn't have a walled-garden fanbase who want things a particular way to suit their
WP:ILIKEIT preferences instead of following our
WP:P&G like every other subject does. Some day the company article will be at
Disney where it belongs, though I'll leave it to someone else to get that done. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
16:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving articles in January! I remember Ewa Podleś on the Main page, and have - believe it or not - two musical DYK. Shalom chaverim. On vacation, with something for your sweet tooth -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Today: the performance of Anna Nekhames -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and a few new vacation pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, SMcCandlish
You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, we don't or shouldn't be using "must" anywhere in MoS or any other guideline unless describing a policy or technical requirement.
@ SMcCandlish, this is wrong. Here's a list of five statements in the main MOS page that use the word must. Notice the absence of policy and technical requirements:
Do you see any here that ought to be presented as mere "should" statements – like, you "should" use proper punctuation at the end of a sentence, but it's sometimes okay if you don't? I don't.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content says:
If something is actually required, even if it is "only" required by the rules of proper English grammar, then it should be indicated as a "must", not a "should". It is unfair and needlessly confusing to tell editors that something merely should be done this way when we are actually requiring it. There has never been a rule relegating the use of words like must to pages that say "policy" in a box at the top. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
A note for my talk-page stalkers – here's my opposition vote comment:
The "even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C" portion of this is not acceptable at all: "Movement government structures may also refer UCoC enforcement cases or appeals, even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C, to the U4C." Nope. U4C has to stay within its scope or this will just turn into a "forum-shop my buddies to get a result the community denied me" kangaroo court. This even directly contradicts previous rulemaking in the same document: "The U4C will not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC, or its enforcement."
This is also problematic (aside from the grammar error in it): "Provides a final interpretation of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC if the need arises, in collaboration with community members enforcement structures". This "collaboration" is undefined, and too vague to be meaningful.
There may be other issues with it as well, but these two parts alone were enough to trigger my immediate opposition. Policy writing is hard, and the drafters of this are not trying or thinking hard enough yet.
The vote is somehow only open until 2024-02-02. Can anyone say "rush job" and "ramrod"?
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I recommend you undo your Plant Descriptions thread closure at WT:MOS. As you know from your own work on MOS:CS and your recent proposal to add it to the general WP MOS, the thread is indeed absolutely an MOS issue, WP:BOTANY does not have its own MOS under active development. It's also not a sourcing matter -- Meteorquake is describing the order in which content sections should be presented, and why it being unorganized as now causes confusion, which seems like exactly the kind of thing MOS:CS is set up around.
Meteorquake was correctly told to check with WT:BOTANY. But as this can be nothing other than a style issue, and as BOTANY has no MOS project set up yet, the thread is improperly closed, and the description and edit summary are inaccurate. SamuelRiv ( talk) 00:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
"BOTANY has no MOS project set up yet" doesn't even really make sense. There is no such thing as a wikproject's "MOS project". The MOS:CS discussion is about the nonsensical situation that we have a long-standing style advice page that is actually followed and has MOS:FOO shortcuts, i.e. is basically treated as if it's part of MoS, but it not titled, tagged, and categorized as one, but as a wikiproject style essay. That WP:BOTANY has no corresponding page, either as a guideline or as an essay, is just immaterial. The vast majority of wikiprojects have never generated a style advice essay, much less gotten it elevated to MoS guideline status, because most topics do not have style matters we need to address that are topic-specific. The lack of more such essays and guidelines is generally desirable, for WP:CREEP and especially WP:MOSBLOAT reasons: We don't need more rules than we already have (actually need fewer of them), most especially style rules, which are subject to more dispute than any other kind. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For noting that unencyclopedic detail was inserted into the Brunswick Corporation and taking prompt action, exemplifying scrutiny, precision and community service! gidonb ( talk) 14:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
Hi, I would like to bring this problem to your attention. The behaviour of this user seems strange to me; for example you, and I trust you very much, put vecchio in italics, why then did I, who followed the same logic, according to this user get it wrong? However, I follow the indications of a very famous and renowned English dictionary, so I'm not using italics at random. JackkBrown ( talk) 03:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
lang|it|...}}
which produces the italics and also does language encoding". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
04:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Martinevans123,
Necrothesp,
Julietdeltalima, and
MapReader:: It's unlikely that the short forms (or at least the semi-short one) constitute "an Americanism omitting vital words". There is likely dialectal variation on this even within the UK itself. There's a whole book about the subject of "She gave him a book" versus "She gave a book to him" construction variety across British English itself:
Gerwin, Johanna (2014). Ditransitives in British English Dialects. Topics in English Linguistics ser., no. 50.3. De Gruyter Mouton.
ISBN
9783110352146.
Probably something to get at a library (perhaps through inter-library loan) unless you have access to such material via some kind of institutional account. It's one of those stupid-expensive academic volumes, at US$138. My own n-grams showed broad usage distribution when it came to the age phrasing. The thread's now archived at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 227#Aged etc, but in summary: it's probably good that we did not get toward instituting some "rule" about this, based on anecdotal speculation about what sounds best to any of us. Best left to editorial discretion at a particular article (even a particular sentence, e.g. one might have an early sentence use the long form and a later sentence use one of the shorter ones to avoid unnecessary repetitive verbiage). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, SMcCandlish! Hey, here's a title caps question for you. Shouldn't " Sitting on Top of the World" actually be "Sitting On Top of the World", with the word "on " capitalized? I was sorta thinking it should, because MOS:TITLECAPS says to capitalize "the first word in a compound preposition (e.g. Time Out of Mind)". I'm not sure though, so, what do you think? — Mudwater ( Talk) 15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I'm asking is that I'm planning on creating an article about Sitting On Top of the Blues, an album by Bobby Rush, and I want to use the appropriate capitalization for that. — Mudwater ( Talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
So anyway, "Sitting on Top of the World" and Sitting on Top of the Blues are what to use. Broad advice that serves well on virtually all style questions: If there's any doubt, presume it's poorly founded and just follow the most applicable general MoS rule, as a default. (If you think some codified exception to it might apply but are not sure, presume it does not.) If you skirt the rule based on subjective doubt, it invites unnecessary dispute which would likely not arise otherwise. Put another way, if you can imagine some doubt, leave it to someone else with a bee in their bonnet about it to make the case that the doubt is well-founded and that an exception applies or should be made. Don't do the work for them (you'll find it thankless, since such propositions always meet with objection from others). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Template:R from project 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/2024 February 20 § Template:R from project until a consensus is reached. — a smart kitten[ meow 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Blockquote paragraphs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving quality articles in February. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment, and at Talk:Yemen on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:Ram Mandir on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jessintime ( talk) 19:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
They're at least one size too big for you. Tony (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, SMcCandlish. Thanks for your previous help with adjusting inaccurate terminology on the Dahua Technology page. In an effort to update the article, I put up a new request on the Talk page and thought you may want to have a look. Happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks, Caitlyn23 ( talk) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SMcCandlish. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I know we haven't always seen eye to eye on certain items, but you're easily one of the most knowledgeable editors out there about MOS matters and I respect your point-of-view. My question is about linking from infoboxes. Over the past couple of years, infoboxes have been gradually added to several featured biography articles. Many of these articles have links to list of works or awards for quick reference for example, Alec Guinness has a link to works. Does this practice violate the MOS? Is this spelled out anywhere? Should it be? Thanks for any feedback you can provide! Nemov ( talk) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As to the question: Is this only about links that go out to another article like Alec Guinness on stage and screen, or ones that link in-article to a section below? I think with regard to the Guinness case (and similar stuff is very often done at band and album and single articles, to link to discographies, to previous/next album in chronological sequence, to album from song, etc.; and there are many other such cases), this is basically an integration of navbox features into the infobox, to avoid having a separate right-hand navbox sidebar. In many cases, it's going to be technically redundant with a page-bottom navbox, but there seems to be widespread community tolerance of providing multiple forms of navigation to account for the different ways various individual readers respond to information-architectural features. E.g. navboxes themselves are technically reundant to categories and vice-versa. This is covered in a general way at WP:CLNT.
I just searched that page for the word "infobox" and it does not appear. I searched
MOS:INFOBOX for "nav", and the relevant material there is this: "As with navigation templates, the purpose of the infobox is for its utility, not appearance; therefore, infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative. ... Like navigation templates, infoboxes should avoid flag icons. For more information about flag icons, see MOS:FLAG. ... Other types of templates: Wikipedia:Navigation templates – article footers designed to provide links to several related articles". That's it. Nothing relevant for a "nav" search at
WP:WikiProject Infoboxes.
Template:Infobox provides an example of merging an infobox into {{
Sidebar}}
as a sub-box (and the implication is that it works the other way around, too, since {{
Infobox}}
and more specific infoboxes based on that meta-template also support the sub-box functionality).
There seems to be no pro or con guideline material (unless it's in some other page) that pertains to having navigational features in infoboxes (either as line-items like in the Guinness case, or as sub-boxes). Per the lead material at MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox primarily serves as a nutshell that "summarizes key features of the page's subject" ("features" is rather poor wording; I'm going to go change that to "facts" or "details") and "show[s] information relevant to the article subject"; "relevant" at least in theory could include some navigational material to closely related articles (I'm more skeptical regarding links to sections within the same article). There appears to be broad acceptance, so far, of navigational features also being present in infoboxes, at least in certain types of infoboxes and in certain forms, but it's not clear whether this is actually a best practice. So, something to perhaps raise as a question at WT:MOSINFOBOX. History that occurs to me is that WP's infoboxes actually originated as a form of navigation, and were first implemented at articles that were part of a series on related subjects. They were only later generalized to other sorts of articles because their features were thought useful. Given the level of discord that arises about infoboxes, I'm hesitant to say more, ha ha. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, done some work on the page, added more reviews, noted your kind edits, would you please give a second look. I sincerely think this work is noticeable and feed into a very present discussion on AI; the book is very opinionated, and perhaps this is the reason why its Wikipedia page reads as opinionated, though I did my best to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey,
Does WP:MOSBIO have any guidance on how we name UK High Court justices in articles outside of their respective biographies? I'm currently working on rescuing a draft where it's necessary to make reference to a High Court ruling and the judge who issued it. The sources about the ruling itself all describe the judge as Mr Justice <name>. I can't quite tell if this is something that's covered by MOS:JOBTITLE or an odd application of MOS:CREDENTIAL, or if there's some other more specific guidance elsewhere. Have you any inklings on this? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I think what's happening here is also that people confuse forms of address used when writing to people or introducing them at a function, with how to write about them in the third person. Thus you can sometimes run into things like "the Rt Hon. Alex Crabapple" in running text, despite HONORIFICS saying not to do that. Should just be fixed when encountered without making a big deal out of it, unless someone's going around doing this all over the place, then they need to be pointed at the guideline and asked to stop.
There's a closely related problem in which some editors from
WP:PEERAGE and
WP:ROYALTY have gone around in a
WP:FAITACCOMPLI manner, misusing (over numerous objections) the |name=
parameter of {{
infobox officeholder}}
or {{
infobox person}}
to hold an honorific form of address that is neither the name nor how the person would normally be written about in third person, but how they would be addressed in a letter or when introduced at a speaking engagement. See, e.g.,
Gwynneth Knowles,
Margaret Thatcher,
David Cameron, etc. This is confusing to readers and editors alike, and not even really encyclopedic information, since virtually zero of our readers need to write a letter to David Cameron, and even if they did,
WP is not advice on the etiquette of how to best do that (though the form of direct address arguably might be coverable somewhere in the article on the general sort of title). The only way to resolve that mess is probably going to be with a VPPOL-level RfC. I don't relish it, because it's going to be yet another instance of topical specialists in conflict with general MoS rules, and that almost always leads to heat and drama. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
"Justice Gwynneth Knowles" or whatever would be appropriate, when it's necessary to indicate that they're a justice, but after that's established, just "Knowles" would usually work.Awesome, I'll make that change in a moment.
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Lang-ang/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 08:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Per this AE report you are formally reminded to remain civil in MOS discussions, that you remain under sanction, and that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia. I expect that if you end up at AE again the result will be significantly more severe. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
In particular, in this case I demonstrated that while I had displayed some civility issues, many of the accusations were false, especially with regard to "assuming bad faith", which I provably did not do, and which is what my sanction actually pertains to, not incivililty. "Assuming bad faith" and "incivility" are not in any way synonymous. I would expect that an AE admin would understand all of this deeply and clearly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in March! - I uploaded Madeira vacation pics (from back home, at least the first day) and remember Aribert Reimann. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Just so I don't get it wrong...I'm fixin' to move Probationary Firefighter to lower case. How does your reading of JOBTITLES incline you? Primergrey ( talk) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for intruding - I stupidly created this page with a dot in the title, and do not know how to remove it. Roman Science: Origins, Development, and Influence to the Later Middle Ages. Can you help? Thanks. Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 11:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish. I am about to start an arbitration request. I don't have high expectations and I am even thinking I may get an indefinite block as boomerang, but it is something I have to address. I hope I don't get blocked and I may not get an indefinite but just in case I wanted to highlight my appreciation for the time you have taken in responding to my queries in a detailed and quality manner. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I continue monitoring for new pieces treating McQuillan's Resisting AI as they appear, and one just came out in the International Journal of Communication 18(2024), Book Review 967–970; see the text here.
Could the notability warning be removed? Thanks for your help and Happy Easter. Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 17:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish. Sorry it seems easier to ask than find the relevant sections of MOS, but should reference be in inside or outside parenthesis (when used in article text)? Blah blah (Blah[1]),...
Seems logical but Blah blah (Blah)[1],...
looks more in keeping with the way articles are styled. I'm betting it's covered somewhere, but I couldn't find anything at
MOS:PAREN. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t°
16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Blah blah (yak),[1]..., since superscripted footnotes always come after the comma, or semicolon, or period/full-point.)
My personal take on this, and what I seem to observe in frequent use, is to do Blah blah (yak),[1]...
if the citation covers the entire parenthetical. In such a circumstance, Blah blah (yak[1]),...
and Blah blah (yak),[1]...
are actually logically equivalent, and a lot of editors prefer the appearance of the latter. Also use Blah blah (yak),[1]...
if the citation covers both the parenthetical and the rest of the sentence that precedes it, obviously. When it doesn't, we'd be more expecting Blah blah[1] (yak[2]),...
or Blah blah[1] (yak),[2]...
. But always do Blah blah (yakkety[1] yak[2]),...
, or more fully Blah blah[1] (yakkety[2] yak[3]),...
, any time the citation covers only part of the claim in the parenthetical.
That MoS section should probably be updated to say something like what I just did (but more concisely), to better reflect actual practice, and to not require Blah blah (yak[1]),...
in circumstances for which Blah blah (yak),[1]...
is directly equivalent. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I updated Template:SfnRef/doc recently. I think there was a point you were making in the documentation regarding when to use templates that make parentheses. In the parts I updated, I just used the most common templates, {{ sfn}} and {{ harvnb}}. So I wanted to invite you to make any changes or ask any questions. Rjjiii ( talk) 04:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
should be used instead, except in an article using CS2 or some other means of outputing full citations that don't parenthesize the dates. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
18:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)We could use your help with 'what', 'which', 'to' (twice), 'in', 'froissés', 'déchirés', and 'like', and perhaps 'papier', at Talk:But what about the noise.... — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Pepitos 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/2024 April 16 § Pepitos until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in April! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Since you had some lengthy input here regarding the reported user's conduct, I was wondering what you suggest about a recurrence of the behaviour at the New York City article, such as this biting of a new user, and this one, which wasn't much better. I don't particularly want to create a new ANI, but will if necessary. Seasider53 ( talk) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
An ancient Greek verb ending in "-izein" has the infinitive ending, while "-izo" shows the first person singular present indicative ending. Traditional dictionaries (Liddell and Scott etc) list verbs under the 1st singular form, while for other purposes the infinitve may be preferred. Not sure it makes much difference. AnonMoos ( talk) 08:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish. Thank you for your work on Kailaasa. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, when you use {{cite AFM}} could you please also use {{sfn whitelist|CITEREFO'Donovan1856}} to prevent the false Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors it causes? Thanks, DuncanHill ( talk) 22:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
|John O'Donovan=
|1856=
stuff that had to be done the way the AFM template was formerly mis-coded (with |author=
AKA |last=
wrongly containing the entire author name). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfn whitelist}}
thing. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfn whitelist}}
template, but it seems like a lot of work to do and then later undo for a temporary display problem that doesn't actually even affect the citations' functionality.
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving articles in May! - Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up weak citations at Neoplasticism, which has the potential to be a GA. I've bumped up against the question of what to do when there is a need to cite more than one issue of a journal in the same year. The ideal would be {{sfnp|Smith|May 1924|page=123}} but that is interpreted as Smith & May 1924 p.123. I've kludged around it using ref={{sfnref to make 1924a, 1924b etc., but it is far from ideal: in context, Smith (May 1924) p.123 would be "nicer" and easier for inexperienced editors to use. Have I missed a trick or would it need a template enhancement? (If it would, whether it would be 'value for money' is a whole other question.) What do you think? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
{{sfnref}}
is hardcoded to only accept date parameter input in the form YYYY or YYYYx, where x is a single letter. You can't even do YYYYxz. This whole "1924a" and "1924b" stuff is actually a poor idea (imported wholesale from one or another of the offsite citation styles, probably Chicago/Turabian, though I misremember). It's a poor idea on WP because it presumes that the sources will be listed in a and b order and that this order will never change, which is an assumption that cannot be depended upon in a wiki. The editor adding the material might have put them in backwards order, or some later editor might have moved them around, or another editor might have added a third source from same author and year that goes between the original a and b. It would actually be better for {{sfnref}}
to support more specific date formats like Monthname YYYY, as you desire, though it would take some testing with a bunch of templates to ensure that the #CITEREF... anchor ouput this generated actually worked with everything like {{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
. For right now, the solution still actually is to do |ref={{
sfnref|Smith|1924a}}
. A more manual alternative would be to do |ref=Smith (May 1924)
, and do citations to this in the form <ref>[[#Smith (May 1924)|Smith (May 1924)]], p. 123.</ref>
. There are articles in which I have done this a few times because of an important source author churning out several articles per year. If same page has to be cited more than once, then a ref name is needed, e.g.: <ref name="Smith (May 1924), p. 123">[[#Smith (May 1924)|Smith (May 1924)]], p. 123.</ref>
and a later <ref name="Smith (May 1924), p. 123" />
. Code-wise, it's a bit ugly, but for the end reader is much more sensible than "Smith (1924b), p. 123", especially since we cannot (per
WP:REUSE) expect that every reuse of WP content will include a link between the "1924b" string and the intended specific citation. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
... whether it would be 'value for money' is a whole other question.. "No further action at this time". -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Got edit warring there again. Geogene ( talk) 21:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Blockquote/to right of image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VampaVampa ( talk) 20:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Cue sports writers and broadcasters has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pool writers and broadcasters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Snooker writers and broadcasters has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/multiterm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/multiterm-function has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The redirect User:2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047 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/2024 June 2 § User:2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047 until a consensus is reached. Nickps ( talk) 15:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:AZBilliards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 10:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, would you be alright with this redirect [27] being deleted to make way for an article I've written on the subject: Draft:Hypothyroidism in dogs, thanks. Traumnovelle ( talk) 22:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
Main|Hypothyroidism in dogs}}
if you didn't do that already. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Gbq/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — sbb ( talk) 08:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey Gary Oldman Person!
I recall you helped me once w/ a Bette Davis section hatnote indent. This one is a bit different, as it's an inquiry about a page-topper hatnote (forgive/correct me, if terminologies are incorrect).
So with some similarly titled things, I think there are instances where simple About-For, Distinguish-For, etc. etc. all work just fine, or even just single About, For, Distinguish, et al. There is also Redirect-Distinguish-For, which I've used at least once. But I can't fathom exactly why there isn't an About-Distinguish-For?? I know I've edited a few recently where I felt that was the best choice, yet realized it's non-existent. I feel like it's close enough to Redirect-Distinguish-For to be worth formatting for usage. Using two separate hatnotes, in which the second ends up creating a line break/second line for no reason is no good.
For just a small example—not the best—let's use this indie film, Departure (2015). Stub, needs work. But About "2015 film". Not to be confused with 2008 film. For other films with the same title, see Departure (disambiguation) § Films. Just pretend these are bigger films, if needed. First is to identify or clarify article, rather than what redirected them there. Second, this particular alternate title that could cause confusion is the MOST notable one that is worth singling out for distinguishment, because it's the foreign-language Oscar winner. And lastly, the disambiguation is not just general departures, but a list of a few other films from various years that are also titled Departure (in some spelling/grammar variation). If need be, replace these with any Major/Minor/Other popular names of nouns!
I thought there might be some way to manipulate the template within the template, to insert the {For} within an About-Distinguish-custom text type. Idk. But alas, that's where I'm at and I seem to be having trouble articulating the necessity, imo, for one. -- Cinemaniac86 Talk Stalk 05:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
In this case, I would simply use {{
For|other films with the same title|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}}
. I really can't see a good rationale for {{
About-distinguish|the 2015 film|Departures (2008 film)}}
, since neither the title nor the year are a match, and there is no actual reason to try to single out any other movie at all (award or no) among such a number of films. Anyone who is so aware of the details of obscure Oscars categories is already going to know it was a 2008 Best Foreign Film winner not a 2015 winner. I.e., there is far more confusion potential with
Departure (1931 film),
Departure (1938 film), and
Departure (1986 film). Anyone who just encountered a "I really recommend the film Departure" or something will not know which it is, especially if it was in a context like a film class or some other venue that was not wholly focused on recent releases. If
The Departure (2015 film) or a
Departures (2015 film) also existed (or something like "
Chicken Nuggets of Doom, a 2015 Elbonian film re-titled Departure in some markets"), those would also be very likely confusion candidates.
But there are already too many to call them out specifically in a hatnote. {{
For|other films with the same or similar titles|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}}
is really what is needed (without any other DAB hatnote). And while it doesn't apply to this specific obscure indy film, for many films there could also be a directly related soundtrack album, novel, video game, sequel, earlier or remake film version, derived TV series, overall franchise article, or something else to disambiguate from the 2015 (or whatever year) film.
Maybe there could be a use case for a {{
About-distinguish-for}}
, I don't think
Departure (2015 film) is that use case. And while it would be easy to create such a template, if it does not see [appropriate] use, it will just get deleted at
WP:TFD. Wikipedia's been disambiguating things for 23+ years, and has done so fine without such a template, so it's unlikely to prove useful. It's important to remember that these hatnotes exist only to help readers be sure they have arrived at the right article when they just guess at a title, or click on something that provides the title but insufficent context for that person to positively identify it among the alternatives. A purpose they do not serve is trying to "educate" or PoV-sway readers with an editorial opinion about what is most popular or important or notable among things with kinda-similar names from different time periods. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in June! - Today we have a centenarian story (documentation about it by Percy Adlon) and an article that had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey SMcCandlish, I'm fixing {{ Xtn}}'s appearance in dark mode, and I'm not sure I understand the hidden comment left there. Does {{ Xtn/sandbox}} work? Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 17:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
color: initial
, various of these xt-family of templates do not have consistent link-coloring behavior. As for dark mode, I'm not sure which dark mode you mean. I don't see a "dark mode" option in the desktop version (in Vector Legacy, which is what I use). Regardless, this CSS stuff would probably be better moved to a TemplateStyles page at this point. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I would think the thing to do would be to have color: initial
applied by default, and override it selectively for particular conditions in which whatever custom result you want to apply under those particular conditions has been well-tested.
I'm highly skeptical that a specific color such as color: black
should ever be set, since it incorrectly presupposes that the conditions of the surrounding block will be known at all times and will be consistent from one context to another, which is not correct (though when it is wrong will probably not be very often). While we can be certain that general running text in an article is going to look a particular way, we have no way to predict what a particular templated condition is going to look like (various templates colorize blocks of text as to background, text color, or both). And these xt-type templates aren't for article text anyway, but generally for use in internal documentation.
When initial
is assigned to a non-inherited propery, like display
, it defaults to the CSS spec's default. When initial
is assigned to an inherited property like color
, it inherits the value most recently defined for that context in the stylesheet stack (if there is one, otherwise it gets the CSS-spec default or perhaps the browser default, if they different, and depending on the browser). There must have been a specific reason that both unset and inherit
were not getting the job done properly in this case, but I wouldn't recall what the specifics were after so long. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
13:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I
asked about this in the talk page, but no one answered - seeing as you're the one who wrote the original clarification of All:
vs all:
could you please give that talk section a read? I'd have requested an edit to the page, but I'd rather someone else confirm first. –
2804:F14:809B:301:18CD:9D72:3518:7DDA (
talk)
19:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
No RfAs or RfBs reported by Cyberbot I since 1:57 6/23/2024 (UTC)
13 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Updated as needed. Last updated: 08:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 12 July 2024 |
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 12 July 2024 |
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | ( orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
Clarification request: Noleander | none | ( orig. case) | 11 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Durova | Motion | ( orig. case) | 4 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox | none | none | 10 July 2024 |
Clarification request: Desysoppings | none | none | 12 July 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
Most recent poster here: SMcCandlish ( talk)
Mini-toolbox:
{{em}}
for non-emphasis italics
[1] — and <em>
[2]{{
ref info|Manx cat|style=float:right}}
(\r\n|\r|\n)
Good article nominees
Other:
As of
2024-07-08 , SMcCandlish is Active.
|
|
|
Extended content
|
---|
Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sad...How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part. [3]; info about making records: [4]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding: [5]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991 wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls: No5 Balls.html. Fences& Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed? There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth ( talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
You had previously asked that protection be lowered on WP:MEDMOS which was not done at that time. I have just unprotected the page and so if you have routine update edits to make you should now be able to do so. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
@ SMcCandlish: I stumbled upon ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects and there are ~100 pages whose pages have been moved, but the editnotices are still targeted to the redirect page. Seems like a great, and sort of fun, WikiGnoming activity for a template editor such as yourself. I'd do it, but I'm not a template editor. Not sure if that's really your thing, though. ;-) Cheers,
|
Extended content
|
---|
Don't forget to deal with: Template talk:Cquote#Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2020. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
Not sure the ping went through, so noting here. Just spotted where a now-blocked user moved a bunch of animal breed articles back to parenthetical disambiguation from natural disambiguation. As they did it in October and I'm only catching it now, I only moved back two just in case there was some kind of consensus change. The equine ones are definitely against project consensus, the rest are not my wheelhouse but I'm glad to comment. Talk:Campine_chicken#Here_we_go_again. Montanabw (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
|
FYI, it looks like your key has expired. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
de:Rapport (Textil) is an intersting approach, and we don't seem to have a corresponding sort of article. Something I might approach at some point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there. In 2020, you moved
Three-Fifths Compromise to
Three-fifths Compromise, with the edit summary
WP:HYPHEN (don't capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hypen it itself a proper name).
I have a question about that: are you certain WP:HYPHEN is saying "if what follows a hyphen is a proper noun" rather than "if the hyphenated compound is a proper noun"? If your interpretation of the wording is accurate, then I would propose that the exemption for "titles of published works" be extended to all proper nouns. In the case of the Three-Fifths Compromise, plenty of sources capitalize "fifths", including
AP,
NYT,
WaPo,
Forbes,
LA Times, and
Guardian, etc. This is also an outlier, as we have articles like
Coca-Cola ("cola" is not a proper noun),
Spider-Man ("man" is not a proper noun),
Quasi-War ("war" is not a proper noun),
Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("discrimination" is not a proper noun), etc.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Collapse-boxing a long thread so I don't have to keep scrolling past it
|
---|
|
The following rules apply to hyphenated terms appearing in a title capitalized in headline style [...]
- Always capitalize the first element.
- Capitalize any subsequent elements unless they are articles, prepositions, coordinating conjunctions ([...]), or such modifiers [...] following musical key symbols.
- If the first element is merely a prefix or combining form that could not stand by itself as a word (anti, pre, etc.), do not capitalize the second element unless it is a proper noun or proper adjective.
- Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number (twenty-one or twenty-first, etc.) or hyphenated simple fraction (two-thirds in two-thirds majority).
The examples that follow demonstrate the numbered rules [...]
- [...]
- Record-Breaking Borrowings from Medium-Sized Libraries (2)
- [...]
- Anti-intellectual Pursuits (3)
- A Two-Thirds Majority of Non-English-Speaking Representatives (3, 4)
- [...]
APA:
In title case, capitalize the following words in a title or heading:
- [...]
- major words, including the second part of hyphenated major words (e.g., "Self-Report," not "Self-report")
MLA:
When you copy an English-language title or subtitle [...] use title-style capitalization: capitalize the first word, the last word, and all principal words, including those that follow hyphens in compound terms.
[...]
Do not capitalize the word following a hyphenated prefix if the dictionary shows the prefix and word combined without a hyphen.
- Theodore Dwight Weld and the American Anti-slavery Society
AMA:
In titles, subtitles, and text headings, do not capitalize the second part of a hyphenated compound in the following instances:
If either part is a hyphenated prefix or suffix (see [...])
- Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Ankylosing Spondylitis
If both parts together constitute a single word (consult [...])
- Reliability of Health Information Obtained Through Online Searches for Self-injury [...]
- Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children
- [...]
However, if a compound is temporary or if both parts carry equal weight, capitalize both words.
- [...]
- Low-Level Activity
- Drug-Resistant Bacteria
- [...]
In titles, subtitles, and text headings, capitalize the first letter of a word that follows a lowercase (but not a capital) Greek letter (see [...]), a numeral ([...]), a symbol, a stand-alone capital letter, or an italicized organic chemistry prefix, [...]
AP makes no mention of capitalization after a hyphen, but " The Star-Spangled Banner" is given as an example of a title (which we also capitalize, would you look at that).
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@ InfiniteNexus: More research of the above sort is needed. To just dive in and do one bit of it, I find that MHRA Style Guide [15] has a ridiculously inconsistent rule to capitalize after a hyphen, even when it's a prefix that cannot stand alone, except when that prefix is specifically Re-. There is no rationale given for this weirdness. I think it would be worthwhile to look in other major style guides and see whether anything like a largely consistent pattern actually emerges. Your four American ones (at least two of which, APA and AMA, have been moving over time to be increasingly consistent with Chicago on many points) don't cover enough ground for us to be certain of this. And AMA is trying to be meaningful but failing dismally. "Short-term" and "low-level" are both the same kind of term; same goes for "self-injury" and "drug-resistant". They can all be split up without hyphens, without losing meaning: "A low level of drug resitance was observed over a short term in a study of patients admitted for self injury". (I guess this is what happens when medical people with no linguistics background try to write material about English-language structure and usage.) The unitary hyphenated compounds below cannot be split up this way (though some are sometimes colloquially written as hyphenless closed compounds: "knowhow" and "runnerup", but not "fatherinlaw").
Iff it turns out that there is a demonstrable lean across all major style guides, then we could probably encapsulate it with something simplified and easy to remember and apply, which might (more resesearch is needed) be something like:
In title case, capitalize after a hyphen when the compound is temporary (usually a multi-word modifier that would be written without hyphens if not used adjectivally): Real-Estate Demography, Remote-Control Operation, Common-Sense Guidelines. Do not capitalize after a hyphen if the term is a compound with:
- a prefix (Pre-eclampsia, Anti-establishment), unless what follows the hyphen is a proper name Neo-Aristotelian;
- a suffix (Dada-esque);
- a compound with a synergistic meaning separate from that of its parts and which is almost always hyphenated (Father-in-law, Know-how, Runner-up).
A construction like this would avoid AMA's categorical confusion; avoid highly debatable ideas like "constitute a single word", "if both parts carry equal weight", "principal words", "major words"; avoid "the dictionary" nonsense (there is no such thing as "the" dictionary, but lots of dictionaries which often conflict with each other and have different levels of prescriptive versus descriptive approach); and avoid nitpicky geekery no one is apt to care about, like musical key symbols and italicized organic chemistry prefixes (we should not address minutiae like that unless long-term dispute arises about it, per WP:CREEP and WP:MOSBLOAT).
However, I find the "the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number" very dubious, and same with "-century" constructions; I have seen many titles of things that use "Twenty-two", "Fifty-third", and "Fourth-century"; this is one of several cases that needs more investigation in more style guides. And in the end, we are not required to do what a loose preponderance of other style guides seem to lean toward, especially when they contradict each other as to details and rationales; they are just duly informative with regard to what we decide. But we do need to decide something, since the extant material at MOS:TITLES has a gap, and people are not agreeing on what fits inside it.
PS: Your "
The Star-Spangled Banner" is given as an example of a title (which we also capitalize, would you look at that)
smirking isn't constructive. You know as well as I do that WP content is not a source, and that editors doing stylistically questionable things at a particluar article has nothing to do with whether a style rule we have should be changed. More to the point, the style guides you quoted are not in agreement on it, and AMA for one would have it as "The Star-spangled Banner" because "star-spangled" is not a temporary compound but a poetic 18th-century neologism that is a unitary term and appears to have nearly no existence without the hyphen. MLA would also lower-case "-spangled" because of its dictionary rule
[16]. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Applause! Now tell me how to get round wp:CITEVAR objections like this one: Talk:Eric Gill/Archive 1#Proposal to change citations of McCarthy's books to use harvard referencing and Talk:Eric Gill/Archive 1#Page number citations are expected when the source is a substantial book. I had hoped to get the Eric Gill article up to GA standard but I am too much of a secret typographer to put my name to a GAN, given its current spider-crawled-in-the-ink appearance. Sigh. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref>Smith 2023, p. 7.</ref>
", or the templated equivalents "This is a claim.<ref>{{harv|Smith|2023|p=7}}</ref>
", or "This is a claim.{{sfn|Smith|2023|p=7}}
". It's actually possible that 14GTR was literally opposed to ever including page numbers in any form, in which case his argument has no
WP:P&G legs to stand on and should just be ignored.Sudden flash of possible insight: A strong case can be made that because the community did clearly deprecate inline parenthetical referencing in 2020 (
WP:PAREN), and the rationale for doing so was its reading-flow disruptiveness, not the fact that round-bracket characters were involved, this actually translates automatically to a deprecation of {{
Rp}}
as well. It is simply another format for doing inline parenthetical referencing (its own documentation states explicitly that it's an adaptation from "full Harvard referencing and AMA style", though ultimately this is me quoting myself), just with fewer details and using superscript and colon, instead of more details with round brackets and no superscript or colon. That is, the deprecation is of citations that are inline and
parenthetical, not inline and using what Americans call parentheses (round brackets). So, replacing "This is a claim (Smith 2023, p. 7)." but retaining "This is a claim<ref>Smith 2023.</ref>{{Rp|7}}
" to produce "This is a claim.[1]:7" is simply defying that site-wide consensus by still putting part of the citation (page numbers or other in-source locations) inline parenthetically – especially given that the template can be used to produce things like "This is a claim.[1]:viii–xiv, 7–9, 12, and back cover". Indeed,
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful already includes "converting
parenthetical referencing to an acceptable referencing style". So, you could actually try that argument right now in doing cleanup of {{
Rp}}
.Because of the "let chaos reign" stupidity that is
WP:CITEVAR, some people are probably apt to try to argue against this, but I think their case will be weak and easily deflated. That said, probably the only path to total cleanup is going to be really fully documenting how to convert {{
Rp}}
into other formats, and why it is a good idea, and why {{Rp}}
is bad, and then have a follow-up RfC or TfD to formally deprecate {{Rp}}
and mandate its replacement (mostly by AWB and sometimes even by bots for simple cases), so that it is no longer considered a valid "citation style" for CITEVAR purposes, no question about it. And I think the work in doing that documentation is going to be in my lap, though I'm not over-eager to wade into it right this second. It gives me a headache just thinking about it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
, at
User:SMcCandlish/Replacement of Template:Rp. Still needs some more info in it, and proofreading for any markup errors that mess up any of the code examples. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
09:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Update: This is going very slowly, but I'm committed to working on it. It's going to require a bunch of very well-tested regular expressions, used in series in a JS user script, to catch and clean up a large number of content use cases, so that it produces uniform citation formatting (and without breaking anything). My earlier-documented work toward that at the page mentioned above has already been surpassed, in code I'm developing off-site. I'll start building the regexes I'm working on into a JavaScript pretty soon and start testing that against real content and refining it. After it reliably works for all valid and most sane but invalid test cases, then we'll be able to do search–replace operations against {{
rp}}
that will have predictable results with minimal errors. This is going to be a big project. It was more difficult than I expected because XML syntax (much less XML mixed with a {{...}}
syntax!) is incredibly difficult to parse accurately with regex (or anything else for that matter) reliably. I've been using advanced tools like regex101.com with complex blobs of valid and invalid test-case input, and using ChatGPT to try to work out particularly thorny matching failures, and so on. As an example, just one of the regexes developed so far looks like <ref\s+name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))\s*(?:(\/)|)>
, and even this cannot yet handle <ref name=foo group=bar>
to normalize the name=
part, only to avoid breaking a ref that has a group=
part (and it does not do anything to normalize the latter part yet, only the former). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref group="bar's > / bar" extends=baz name='foos > / foo' follow="quux quux" />
(and some of the code it's accounting for is only in the beta of
mw:Help:Cite and not deployed on en.WP yet), though this one regex only fixes up the name=
parameter; other passes with similar regexes would handle other attributes like group=
to normalize their formatting. Then another pass to fix spacing that shouldn't exist between citations. And so on. And of course a pass to replace {{
rp}}
with {{
sfnp}}
or whatever. Like I say, a multi-step process that'll be done by using the regexes in JS. The regex in question is now the monstrous <ref\s+((?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!name\s*=).)*)?name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))(\s+(?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>).)*)*\s*(?:(\/)|)>
. I'm suprised I pulled this off. Its one failure is that it can't gracefully handle the XML-valid (but technically ref-invalid) form name='foo "bar" baz'
(single-quoted value with nested double quotes) or the completely invalid name="foo "bar" baz">
; that's something that'll need to be handled by an earlier cleanup pass that looks just for those specific problems. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
<
ref>
attributes, as well as > inside quoted attributes after name=
.
name
with or without other attributes present) is: <ref\s+((?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!name\s*=)[\s\S])*)?name\s*=\s*(?:"\s*([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*"\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*"|'\s*([^'"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*'>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*?)\s*'|([^"](?:(?!\s*\/>|\s*>|\s+(?:group|follow|extends)).)*))(\s+(?:group|follow|extends)\s*=(?:(?!\s*\/>|"\s*>|'\s*>)[\s\S])*)*\s*(?:(\/)|)>
<ref group=
"bar's > / bar"
extends=
baz
name=
'
foos > / foo
'
follow=
"quux > quux"
/>
<
syntaxhighlight>
can't deal with the above, but what I'm writing can. This one just cleans up name
(to name="foos > / foo"
from the above mess, and gets rid of the line break before the closing />
while we're at it); similar regexes in later passes will deal with group
, etc., then eventually {{
rp}}
replacement. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC){{#tag:ref |Citation content here. |name=... |group=... |follow=... |extends=...}}
(with parameters in various order and with or without linebreaks and extraneous spacing). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Have you seen Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 92#Automating conversion of REF-plus-Rp to Sfn((m)p)? Do you want to launch a teaser trailer? Your call. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Possibly telling people how to write harv citations is out of scope but I thought I should flag this one for you to include or ignore, your call. I've only just found the {{ref={{sfnref|blah blah}} }} facility and it is a lot more convenient that adding first=/last= to each and every name, just so you can write {{sfnp|last1|last2|last3|last4|2024}}. Here is a test example:
Up to you. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
|vauthors=
in the documentation and scripting eventually. But |vauthors=
should not be used except in an article entirely done in Vancouver-style references (or it's against
WP:CITESTYLE's instructions to use a consistent referencing style). It's a poor idea to use that style in the first place because it outputs less-useful author metadata, and much more importantly is harder to parse for readers (it is less clear that something like "Tan LH" is an individual's name than "Tan, L. H." that matches the rest of our initials formatting and other name handling, most especially when "Tan LH" appears in an article otherwise using citations that output "Tan, L. H."), and it's more error-prone for editors because this weird name formatting must be done exactly perfectly in that parameter. Another serious fault with it is that we often actually know complete author names (and these can be quite helpful in distinguishing authors and even in finding the source in the first place if it's something without a free-to-read URL or DOI), but |vauthors=
forces us to drop most of the name information we already have; it's a disservice to readers and to editors doing verification work. Any time I run into a |vauthors=
in an article that is not consistently in Vanc style, I replace it with a set of |last1=
|first1=
... (unless I'm in a big hurry or something), often with more complete author names.Using |ref={{
sfnref|...}}
a.k.a. |ref={{
harvid|..}}
isn't dependent in any way on |vauthors=
.Also, the Lua behind the citation templates can already parse the names inside |vauthors=
(if they were done right) and use them with {{
sfnp}}
, {{
harvp}}
, etc., directly. If we remove the |ref={{
sfnref|Wang ''et al''|2015}}
from your example:
Here is a claim in the article. [1]
Wang T, Mo L, Mo C, Tan LH, Cant JS, Zhong L, Cupchik G (June 2015). "Is moral beauty different from facial beauty? Evidence from an fMRI study". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 10 (6): 814–23. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu123. PMC 4448025. PMID 25298010.
Just using the automated {{
sfnp|Wang|Mo|Mo|Tan|2015}}
is clearer and easier than using a |ref={{
sfnref|Wang ''et al''|2015}}
along with {{
sfnp|Wang ''et al''|2015}}
. And there doesn't seem to be a consensus that "et al." should be italicized as Latin, because it is so assimilated into English, like "i.e." and "e.g."; I don't think any of our citation templates italicize it. (But it should have a "." after it, italicized or not, even in British usage, since it's a truncation abbreviation, of et alia.) Even without the italics, just using the automated {{
sfnp|Wang|Mo|Mo|Tan|2015}}
is still clearer and easier than using a |ref={{
sfnref|Wang et al.|2015}}
along with {{
sfnp|Wang et al.|2015}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
|first1= last1= first2= last2=
etc. Generally I avoid using it when creating a citation except when the authors are Chinese or Japanese but the article is in English: how do I know if it is last=Mao first=Tse Tung or vice versa? I confess to using it too when ten authors are listed, for example on IPCC papers.) --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
, but I'm a little down on that because we had more author information and doing that deleted it. I think I'll whip up a script to convert from vauthors to last/first, at least for my own convenience, but probably after doing this big ref-cleaner and rp-replacer job first.As for Asian names, I would guess just go by what the publication says; if it's "Chaudhary, C.; Richardson, A. J.; ...", and had a "Hua, X." or rarely but sometimes in Sinological material "Hua X" with no comma, in the author list, that already indicates the family-name order. But if the paper's author list started with "Chetan Chaudhary, Abigail Richardson, ..." and included something like "Hua Xiang" then it could be ambiguous; did they keep the same order, or give the Chinese names in surname-first order? I'm not sure vauthors would help here, since you wouldn't be sure whether to use "Hua X" or "Xiang H". Some familiarity with East Asian naming patterns helps. A name like "Hua Xhiangshu" or "Hua Xhian-shu" or "Hua Xiang-Shu" (orthography varies) would be family-name-first. People with more experience at it than I have can figure out Japanese names just by familiarity with which are usually given and which family names. Korean I'm generally at a loss with, unless it follows the Chinese pattern ("Lee Joon-gi" or "Lee Joon-Gi" or "Lee Joongi" is surname-first). It helps a little that a few Korean family names are overwhelmingly common, like Park/Pak/Paik, Lee/Li, Jun/Joon/June, Song/Sung, and Kim. When I'm unsure, I usually just Google around for other works by the same person until I can figure it out. If I could not at all, I would probably do |author4=Hua Xiang
using the name order I had found (at all or most commonly) and leave it for someone with language/culture-specific experience to figure it out later. Maybe put in an HTML comment to this effect. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
PS: As I understand it, the vauthors to sfnp/harvp "translation" uses the author names up to the first four. I'm not sure what happens when someone has a main cite with |vauthors=Chaudhary C, Richardson AJ, Hua X
|display-authors=etal
. I'm not sure if the latter is just a visual injection of "et al.", or whether it counts as a fourth author name and would require {{
sfnp|Chaudhary|Richardson|Hua|et al.|2023}}
. I suspect not, but something to test in a sandbox. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
S, I know you're into games and their capitalizations, so take a look at List of abstract strategy games. I downcased a whole bunch of games listed there already, but there are a few I'm not sure what to do about, such as Connect Four, that might be trademarks, or might be generic. Do you have any insights or advice on those? Dicklyon ( talk) 07:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
five-field {{lang|ko-Latn|kono}}
) – per
MOS:HYPHEN and
MOS:FOREIGN. The parent article
gonu has similar issues. This is the kind of stuff
MOS:GAMECAPS is specifically aiming to address (along with overcapitalization of things like sports, folk dances, sport/dance moves and techniques, game pieces, musical instruments, etc.). For at least the immediate future, we have one weird exception, for
go (game), which is presently being rendered "Go", but obviously really should be go ({{
lang|zh-Latn|go}}
), but we would need another RfC to undo the previous one that arrived at "Go" through what seems to be a
WP:SSF-based
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. But in no way is "Go" some kind of "capitalize all Asian folk games" excuse. So, kono/gonu. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish, I noticed that you are part of the category of Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions [17]. I have been working on Dahua Technology and am hoping you may be interested in reviewing an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding specific terminology used in the article. I'd be grateful for your feedback and assistance in implementing the edits as you see fit. Thank you, Caitlyn23 ( talk) 19:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I've done a little bit of work on Artistic billiards over the last couple days - I'd never seen a match, but recently found a video on YouTube and it's very enjoyable! Shame it is so hard to find a detailed video. I've added some info from Trick Shot about Artistic Pool, but I'm not super familiar with the subject. Is there any funky sourcing outside of Shamos's book about these terms, Google isn't super helpful. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Main|Trickshot#Artistic pool}}
at the top of it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
SMcCandlish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk)
14:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe ( talk) 14:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Do you know if Speed pool is actually a thing? It's been unsourced for a decade and I couldn't find much about it aside from a few tournaments of the same name. Seems non-notable to me, but thought I'd check first. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Something to deal with quickly:
Need to stop putting this off; will probably only take 10 minutes.
Ongoing:
Several things appear to have stalled out over the holidays:
Some of these may need to be restarted as RfCs.
See also:
Forgot about this one for a long time (need to merge the NC material out of MOS:COMICS into WP:NCCOMICS):
An article still using deprecated
WP:PARENTHETICAL referencing of the {{
harv}}
style to use as a cleanup testbed:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. You'll see that my edit was a typo, as I ' Claimed ', as inexpicably I'd typed ' qs ', not ' Vide ', and corrected it.
I'd say that this being an online dictionary, people who read it, by their nature, have an interest in what they don't understand; that not to use words, (though it wasn't my intention), that '...more than a few...' (sic) understand should be persuasive only if we weren't writing in English: to use that for a guide now, (not that that's contravening any Wikipaedia rule), should mean that at some past time somebody declared it is one, anyway; and it must have been sometime between one of the forms of Celtic speech used in Britain and today, since we're using English, here; words which, at one time, '...not more than a few...' knew, meaning we might still be uding Anglo-Saxon. So when did excluding the unfamiliar become a rule ? Dictionaries are still being published to explain both new and unfamiliar words; a pursuit disallowed, now, by this guide.
It's true I could have made ' Vide ' a link; but what's conversational for some is as abstuse as others' reasonings.
Yes, it was mentioned above ; but not all sections and sub-sections are read, and the re-emphasised words occupying the space of an old ink blot might very well, (for the majority, not ' The few ', who skip through what they read), have been the harmless ones that conveyed the distinction between tartan and dicing.
Anyway, regards to you. Heath St John ( talk) 19:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
see below|[[#History|below]]}}
or whatever, which produces output like ( ). The usual purpose of q.v. is to refer to a headword, such as is found in a
glossary; and vide is generally used in academic material to refer to a specific passage (and your use of it didn't provide such specificity). Anyway, the lead section at
Sillitoe tartan is now even clearer than it was, with the terminological quibbles consolidated, so there's little if any room of confusion any longer. PS: Wikipedia style for abbreviated Latinisms like "q.v." and "i.e." and "e.g." and "et al." is to use the dots, and the ones that are well-assimilated into non-specialist English don't take italics, while the more obscure ones like "q.v." and "p.m.v" and "op. cit." (lots of them are legalisms or academicisms) are italicized. "Et al." is actually an edge case with regard to the italics; there is or was recently a discussion open about this, though I forget where. (Frustrating, since I was going to comment in it.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! In the future, I hope you can take a beat and consider WP:AGF instead of implying that someone is busy pushing beans up their nose, as you did in this edit summary. There's already too much gatekeeping at the project, and I don't think you want to come off as doing that. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. In your archive Page-ception you have two paragraphs that outline ref= use as an alternative to Template:rp. Is that still current? Any chance there is a standalone description I can point out for others?
(I use rp primarily because it is much shorter. ref= has the same problem as sfn, additional points of failure. In <ref name=McNuttsIR2006/>{{rp|131}}</ref>
vs <ref>[[#McNuttsIR2006|McNuts, I. R. (2006)]], p. 131.</ref>
, the string "McNuts, I. R. (2006)]], p.
" isn't checked by reference failing.)
Johnjbarton (
talk)
19:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfnp}}
(which does not need a surrounding <
ref>...</ref>
), along with rare use of {{
harvp}}
inside <
ref>...</ref>
for cases that require additional annotations. The complicated |ref=Whatever 2023
and <ref name="Whatever2023">[[#Whatever 2023|Whatever (2023)]] ...</ref>
stuff I did at
Tartan and some other articles can all be replaced by those two templates for a leaner and less error-prone result.Is there some kind of case you're having an issue with? I might be able to help work it out.
The problem (or a problem) with {{
rp}}
is that it is a form of inline parenthetical referencing, which was
deprecated by community consensus entirely in 2022. It separates part of the citation data from the citation and clogs up the text. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
|ref=
twiddling. If it doesn't suit your needs, feel free to undo it of course (
WP:CITEVAR and all 'at). Some folks prefer to have the multi-cited sources be under their own subheading after ==References==
, such as ===Sources===
or ===Bibliography===
, instead of between {{
refbegin}}
and {{
refend}}
(or even both at once). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
<
references>...</references>
structure or an extended {{
reflist|...}}
tag, directly under ==References==
, each wrapped in <
ref>...</ref>
, but this strikes me as unnecessarily complicated. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)sfnp
can be mixed with <ref>
I'll try it.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
02:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
or whatever for every page at which it is cited. This really is about as good as it gets. The whole site seems to be moving this direction. PS: I used {{
sfnp}}
instead of {{
sfn}}
because it produces the same "(2018)" date output as the main citation templates; {{sfn}}
produces "2018" without the consistent parentheses/round-brackets, for no good reason. People only use {{
sfn}}
because it has a shorter name and they think it's "the default" or what is "normal", but it should really not be used unless the article has a citation style that is consistently using "2018" format, which is only possible if they're all non-templated, manually formatted citations, which is pretty much no longer done in any article on the system except old junk no one's touched since the 2000s. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{{sfnp | <last1*> | <last2> | <last3> | <last4> | <year*> | p= <page> | loc= <location> }}
{{cite}}
template correct? All of the parameters last1...year
are essentially an identifier forced to match a function of the cite template as far as I can tell.ref
because the name
only needs to match, the authors and date are only given one place. Seems to me that a solution where the point of citation entry is an arbitrary string and page number like rp
but which renders as the consensus desires would be nicer).
Johnjbarton (
talk)
16:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{{sfnp}}
is in
Template:Sfnp, in the "Possible issues" and "Implementation" sections.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC){{
sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|Le Fevre|2021|p=99|loc=footnote 7}}
.|loc=
parameter is optional and can also be used in place of instead of along with |p=
or its plural form |pp=
(those two are mutually exclusive with regard to each other): {{
sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|Le Fevre|2021|loc=errata sheet}}
{{Cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Amy B. |last2=Jones |first2=C. D. |last3=López-Garcia |first3=Carlos |last4=Le Fevre |first4=Jean-Paul |last5= ... |date=2021 ...}}
to match the above example.
{{Citation |last1=Chen |first1=Amy B. |last2=Jones |first2=C. D. |last3=López-Garcia |first3=Carlos |last4=Le Fevre |first4=Jean-Paul |last5= ... |date=2021 ...}}
{{
Citation}}
are inconsistent injections of this sort into CS1 articles; the number of articles consistently templated in CS2 is decreasing all the time).|vauthors=
mess, as long as it's actually coded in the proper format: {{Cite journal |vauthors=Chen AB, Jones CD, López-Garcia C, Le Fevre J-P, ... |date=2021 ...}}
|last1=
, etc., if |vauthors=
is encountered in a article that is not consistetly using
Vancouver-style citations, which is almost all of the cases at this point. (Few articles remain using Vancouver consistently, but editors who are fans of that style commonly go around wrongly injecting it into articles that do not use it, which is against
WP:CITESTYLE).|editor1-last=
, etc. as author names for this purpose if there is no |last1=
, etc. If there are one or more specified authors, then any editor names are ignored (they do not concatenate onto the author(s) list).|last=
, |author=
, and |author1=
(and the rare |author-last=
, |author1-last=
, and |author-last1=
) are all aliases of |last1=
, and so forth. |editor-last=
, |editor=
, |editor-last1=
, |editor1=
are all aliases of |editor1-last=
, and so on.{{
sfnp}}
, {{
harvp}}
, and all their variants.){{
sfnp|Chen|Jones|López-Garcia|2021|p=32}}
will not work because |Le Fevre
is missing.|display-authors=etal
, to output "et al." after the last specified author name, is not detected or supported. If the citation is {{cite book |last=Adebayo |first=Mohamed |display-authors=etal |date=1997 ...}}
, this must be short-cited like {{
sfnp|Adebayo|1991|p=23}}
.|ref=
comes in. If you have {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ...}}
and {{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ...}}
, the solution is this: {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023a}} }}
and {{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023b}} }}
, each short-cited as {{sfnp|Tāwhiri|2023a}}
and {{snfp|Tāwhiri|2023b|p=42}}
, respectively.
{{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri, K.|2023}} }}
and {{cite journal |last=Tāwhiri |first=Moana |date=2023 ... |ref={{sfnref|Tāwhiri, M.|2023}} }}
, each short-cited as {{sfnp|Tāwhiri, K.|2023}}
and {{snfp|Tāwhiri, M.|2023|p=42}}
, respectively. Doing both forms of disambiguation at once is not helpful. The name disambiguation is often helpful any time there are two authors by the same surname in the same article, even if the publication years do not collide.|year=
parameter: {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |year=2023a ...}}
, which would work with {{
sfnref|Tāwhiri|2023a}}
, but it pollutes the long-form citation's date ouput with an invalid year string: Tāwhiri, Koa (2022a) The
kluge to repair that was to do: {{cite book |last=Tāwhiri |first=Koa |year=2023a |date=2023...}}
. But this is all just ridiculous awfulness, a case of the tail wagging the dog, the code forcing human editors to do confusing crap that abuses and juggles around template parameters for side purposes that don't match their citation-information intent. Worse, non-expert editors are apt to think that |year=2023a
|date=2023
is a typo and "fix" it to just |date=2023
, thereby breaking short cites to that source. The |ref=
parameter was introduced to make such easily broken hoop-jumping unnecessary. Instances of |
, with or without the compensating |date=2023
should be replaced with |date=2023
and an {{
sfnref}}
(also often called by the alias {{
harvid}}
) inside a {{
ref}}
. NB: Using |date=
instead of |year=
is universally better, because |date=
also handles bare years along with fuller dates, and editors who encounter a |year=2023
but see a full date in the cited work when verifying it are apt to improve the citation by giving the full date; |year=
is simply obsolete.|ref={{
sfnref|...}}
. If you have {{cite report |editor1-last=Yi |editor1-first=Xiu-Yīng |editor2=Committee on Reptile and Amphbian Nomenclature |date=2023 |publisher=World Herptological Society ...}}
, you can add |ref={{sfnref|Yi|CRAN|2015}}
, and cite it as, e.g., {{sfnp|Yi|CRAN|2015}}
.{{
Vcite journal}}
, {{
Vcite journal}}
, {{
Vcite book}}
, etc.), which are rare but still occationally found, cannot be used at all with {{
sfnp}}
, etc., without adding |ref={{sfnref|...}}
to them. Yet another reason to not use that citation style.{{
sfnp}}
and related templates have nothing to do with what is in <
ref name="...">
, only the surnames specified inside the citation template. If you have <ref name="DeBroglieMacDuff2019">{{cite web |last1=De Broglie |first1=Matt |last2=MacDuff Samuelson |first2=Jennifer B. |date=2019 ...}}
, this would be short-cited like {{
sfnp|De Broglie|MacDuff Samuelson|2019}}
.
<ref name="DeBroglie & MacDuff Samuelson 2019">
. Note that the quotation marks are mandatory because of spaces and non-alphanumeric ASCII characters. The lazy practice of doing <ref name=DeBMacDS2019>
with very simple ref names that do not contain spaces, punctuation, or other special characters is a terrible idea because someone else is reasonably likely to clean up such messy refs later and may forget the quotation marks and break the citation. Even doing <ref name=DeB-MacDS-2019>
is technically invalid markup, though few editors realize it (MW seems to generally handle it okay, but this cannot be guaranteed in future versions because it's against
the documented requirements of <
ref>
. Every time it is encountered, <ref name=foo>
should be converted to <ref name="foo">
(though as part of a more substantive edit per
WP:COSMETICBOT).Regarding "a solution where the point of citation entry is an arbitrary string and page number like rp
but which renders as the consensus desires would be nicer", I'm not sure that's technically feasible to do within this wiki (but see note below about future features of <
ref>
). Something I could ponder on. If it were doable, I think we would have simply already replaced {{
rp}}
's functionality in situ. There might in theory be some way to do something like Here is some article text.{{magicref|Yamamoto2001|p=27}}
, where the {{magicref}}
template (actually
Lua module – this would certainly have to be done with a complicated Lua program, not with normal template code) matched Yamamoto2001
to a <ref name="Yamamoto2001">{{cite book |last=Yamamoto |first=Sumiko |date=2001 ...}}</ref>
probably defined in a
WP:LDR block at the bottom of the page, and then extracted the necessary details from the long-form citation in essentially the same way that {{
sfnp}}
does, and generated a similar short citation. This would be "brittle" in that if anyone renamed the <
ref>
's name
the {{magicref}}
would break. It also has the issue that, as with {{snfp}}
/{{harvp}}
, it would be generally desirable to put the full-form citation at the bottom of the page. If there were community appetite for this, someone else would have to implement it, because I can't Lua-code may way out of a paper bag.
If this is really just about speed/ease of entry, an interim approach but basically a messy one is to just put the full-length citation into the article body at first citation of the source. The templates really don't care where they "live". It would not technically be invalid to do Here is some article text.<ref>{{cite book |last=Adebayo |first=Mohamed |display-authors=etal |date=1997 |page=123 ...}}</ref> ... This is more article text much later.{{sfnp|Adebayo|1997|pp=289–290}}
It's still citing sources, and doing it inline, just not in an ideal way (because the long citation has a page number "fixed" in it, and it will be mixed into the main <
references>
or {{
reflist}}
output. If you did this at a new article, no one would likely care, but if you did it at an article with already-established citation style someone might object to it as a change in citation style, or at least change it to put the long cite at the bottom and without an permanently embedded page number.
Two further notes:
{{rp}}
replacement guide, with user script tools for making it easier (the scripting requires a boatload of testing and tweaking because parsing XML mixed in with {{...}}
markup using
JavaScript and
regex is very difficult, even when just parsing for a single <
ref>
tag and its limited parameters like name=
and group=
).<
ref>
tag itself is (allegedly and very slowly) coming. The format will look like <ref extends="Miller 2019">Miller (2019), p. 42.</ref>
, and such a short cite will have a clickable ↑ that links to the full citation (hopefully they'll pick another character, since in many cases the full cite might be below all the <
references>
/{{
reflist}}
output, not higher up inside that section). It's already in beta testing, and the preview documentation is at
mw:Help:Cite#Citing different parts of the same source. It could be years before we get this functionality, though. MW development is slow, and deployment to here even slower. That feature was first documented as being in beta on 2 December 2019
[20]! FFS.— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
cite
templates could be bot-moved to Sources/References/Notes.
{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |last2=Jones ... |date=2021 ... |ref={{sfnref|Smith et al.|2021}} }}
then use {{sfnp|Smith et al.|2021|p=92}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Howdy. I believe Dicklyon respects you greatly & not just because you support his 'lower case' stance. Maybe, if you were to 'suggest' directly to him, that he stop making such page moves while a related RFC is on going? he'll comply. I know it's not your responsibility to do that. But, it might help prevent Dicklyon from being reported by an editor (not me) to WP:ANI. GoodDay ( talk) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
VPPOL has always been the "once it is decided here, there is no longer a question to keep asking" venue (unless something changes later and WP:CCC might apply so the question should be asked again). We have no broader-input venue for assessing community consensus. The entire purpose of it is to get as broad as possible a range of input on a question of P&G interpretation, application, or change, especially when it may affect a substantial number of articles and/or the question is mired in a tug-of-war between two opposing viewpoints without sufficent input from middle-ground Wikipedians who are not partisans in the dispute. It is completely routine to use RfC or other processes to arrive at decisions that might otherwise be handled at RM, if RM is not a good process for it in that particular case. (Just one of numerous examples: templates are often renamed via multi-template TfDs in which various templates need to be deleted, some merged, and one or more renamed. See also other examples already posted in the VPPOL discussion. There are many more.) Your notion that the only possible way to arrive at article titling decisions is through an RM is simply patently false. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Doing it "many months after the close" would actually be preferable, for the same reason we strongly discourage re-opening the same RM shortly after it closed with no consenus, or re-opening the same RfC shortly after it came to no consensus. No one [or, no one who should get their battleground wish granted!] wants to continue the same unproductive discussion that recently failed. What we do want to see is either quickly a different, refining discussion that may get past the original roadblock, or much later a re-asking of the same question to see if consensus can be reached among a different pool of presently-active editors. Or, for that matter, asking the variant question but later instead of soon. There is no bureaucracy to follow here.
PS: The reason MRV exists is because it is a (not the only) possible way of questioning a closure result, by asking for review of it by univolved admins (and doing so at WP:AN is still how this is usually done; the RM-related ones were just so frequent that the process was spun off to its own noticeboard like WP:DRV was). Its existence does not mean that the community in an even broader venue is somehow prohibited from examining the question, e.g. at VPPOL. Just think about the implications of that idea for a moment. Name any other decision-making of any kind in which admins get to make up their own "micro-consensus" decision, and the community cannot discuss much less override or move past it. (I'll save you the trouble: it does not exist, not even for hardcore things like indefinite block decisions. Hell, even WP:ARBPOL is subject to community consesus review and revision.) It's also important that MRV exists for one purpose and one only: to determine whether the closer erred in summarizing the RM debate they closed (in this case a decision of "no consensus"). It is expressly not for re-examining any (or adding additional) rationales for whether pages should move and to what names. But the VPPOL discussion is about exactly that (it is a "mega-RM" in a broader venue than RM makes possible), based on what P&G arguments and sourcing apply.
PPS: Yet another example of how other processes than RM are used to arrive at article titles: if an RfC about a rule change or a new rule comes to a clear consensus, then pages are simply manually moved (or RM/TRed if blocked by an edited redirect) to comply with it. That's how the species over-capitalization mess was cleaned up. It required no additional RMs at all (though in theory some could have come up if some particular instance had been disputed). It's especially interesting that: a) the lower-case decision was reached by RM in the first place, b) MRV upheld it as not a faulty close, and c) the community re-examined the question via RfC (based on the claim of upper-casing fans that the RM and MRV had an insufficient consensus level). It's an exactly parallel case, other than it trying to overturn a disliked consensus instead of trying to resolve a failure to come to consensus. You were around for all of that, but did not raise any such bogus "wrong venue" or "wrong process" claims. It's obvious why: because those trying to use the RfC to overturn an RM decision were trying to get an exception from MoS (and AT and NCCAPS), and you consistently support topical "rebellion", ignoring all policy and other considerations to champion the cause of subject- and wikiproject-specific special pleading for exceptions even when they provably cannot be justified by usage in sources independent of the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your contributions on the discussion of "regarded/considered as one of the greatest/best of all-time/his (or her) generation" in WT:MOS#MOS:PUFFERY. How is consensus on that page determined as there doesn't appear to have been any activity for over 10 days now? RevertBob ( talk) 20:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have a weird request that basically involves asking for further context on a comment you wrote in this 2017 RfC. The reason I'm asking you in particular is because as far as I can tell, you are the only one who mentioned school districts at all in that discussion that is still an active editor here.
So, the the story starts with me coming across a school district article that likely would not meet GNG and looking at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. There it says: "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography).
I have no idea what the orgin of this consensus is (or if there ever was one). Anyways, I noticed that this kind of conflicted with what is actually stated at
WP:GEOLAND. So I tried to create an RfC a few months ago. You can read it at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#School districts and GEOLAND. A bunch of people thought my RfC was unclear or weren't sure if there was anything I was trying to change from the status quo... and I'd really just like to not be going in circles trying to understand what happened. As far as I can tell, this is the only RfC that's ever really had anything to do specifically with school districts. So I'd really appreciate it if you could prove me wrong? I'm not trying to change what happened, I just want to understand why this has been such a source of confusion.
Clovermoss🍀
(talk)
21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
"Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).That's WP:NGEO for short.
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.Further down, WP:NGEO states:
Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events.School districts are "legally recognized", being formally established governmental jurisdictions/bodies for a specific purpose. But I'm not personally sure that they really constitute "places" in the sense meant here, especially given the "census tracts" caveat that follows; a school district is much, much more like a census tract than it is like a village or even a named neighborhood. I would think that school districts would actually be approached as organizations (governmental bodies, specifically), and thus subject to WP:NORG (in fact, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES specifically says
The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are [ WP:N and WP:NORG]. School districts are "educational institutions" (they were legally instituted, and they entirely pertain to education). WP:NORG also explicitly covers schools, and it also covers divisions of municipal governments (as a subset of divisions of organizations), and all organizations generally, though it does not happen to mention school districts in particular. Pertinent material from NORG, by sectional shortcut:
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.) If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists .... "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.
Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.It is very difficult to interpret this as not also applying to school districts, especially since the recommendation is to merge NN schools into articles on the local area (town, etc.) instead, not to the school district, though I would do the latter if the district were notable, as being a more pertinent and specific target.
Local units of larger organizations: In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. If the parent article grows to the point where information needs to be split off to a new article, remember that when you split off an article about a local chapter, the local chapter itself must comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, without reference to the notability of the parent organization. Take care not to split off a section that would be considered non-notable on its own.This was written clumsily with fraternities in mind, but it is not actually limite dto them, and there is no reason this would not apply also to school districts, which are highly local units of a larger city government organization.
Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. ... Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization.This clearly includes "division, departments, and other sub-units", and is not specific to any particular organization type, so would include municipal governments.
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)This only mentions schools specifically, but the reasoning in it is not a new rule, it is an explication of existing rules and how they already apply, and they do already apply to school districts as well.
In short, I think this is cause for another RfC, to remove the incorrect presumptive-notability claim from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and to have districts treated exactly the same as any other local subdivision of any (in this case governmental) organization. If that were repaired, some other advice would have to be tweaked, to suggest merging non-notable schools to notable school districts or to the city/town article in the absence of one of the former, because a lot of school districts (probably most of them) are non-notable and should themselves merge to cities/towns in a subsection under government.
The previous RfC appears to have flopped because it did not provide enough of the contextual material. What I would recommend is using the material above (neutralizing some of my editorial arguments) in a collapse box like {{
collapse top|left=y|Pertinent guideline and other material:}}
... {{
collapse bottom}}
(each of those templates has to be on it own line). Then lay out an RfC proposition something like the following:
The essay WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES claims that school districts are presumptively notable as "populated places", on the grounds of WP:GEOLAND (in WP:NGEO). However, that guideline specifically excludes things like census tracts that are not typically considered places in the usual sense, and this could also apply to school districts. Meanwhile, school districts are organizations (divisions of larger municipal governments), much more than they are places, and appear to be subject to the guideline WP:NORG, as are schools and municipal governments themselves. (Specifically, WP:ORGSIG and WP:NONPROFIT in several parts appear directly applicable to districts, along with the intent behind WP:NSCHOOL.) The essay's wording appears to be a WP:POLICYFORK, which needs resolution one way or another.
Options for addressing the issue:
[Do the collapse box of guideline and essay quotations here.]
NB: A previous RfC on this was opened in December 2023, but closed as too unclearly worded to reach a consensus.
[Sig here]
[Then create a "Comments (school districts)" and a "Discussion (school districts)" subsection, disambiguated from other such sections on the VPPOL page.]it is not necessary to have a school district article in order to capture all the schools in a given area: they could be captured under another geographical article, such as the local town or city; and further that:
common sense dictates that when a school district that otherwise does not merit an article more or less covers the same area as a town or city, or even a county or township, both the district & its schools should then be captured in that article."
So, I guess that's doing most of the work already, though I don't think I want to "run" this one myself. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a view on the hyphenation of "subantarctic" or is there anything I've missed in the MoS? List of Antarctic and subantarctic islands and Subantarctic are internally inconsistent. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@
Thebiguglyalien,
Snow Rise, and
Levivich:
I'd forgotten about it, but what was discussed at some length at "
User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 22#Advice going forward on WikiProject Years" shouldn't be forgotten, and is worth developing further. Though that discussion was most immediately about
WP:YEARS and "their" articles,
WP:ITN, and a few other specifics, what Snow Rise said there (in part paraphrasing Levivich) resonantes strongly and is broadly applicable: [T]hese are en.Wikipedia articles at the end of the day, and whatever their unique format and considerations, they are governed by the same content policies as any other user-facing content .... [T]he entire reason we have an objective,
WEIGHT-based standard is to prevent the idiosyncratic perceptions of the "importance" of a topic ... to prevent not just bias in our content, but also the introduction of insurmountable discord into the process of consensus building when such a subjective standard [as what a topical wikiproject might subjectively prefer] is utilized. ... [T]his is primarily a behavioural issue. ... I am certain that any solution has to be based on our existing
RS/WEIGHT standards. It's simply the only approach that can be adopted on this project without the gears constantly locking up beyond our ability to repair. [Failure to apply P&G across topics evenly is] untethering our process from an objective standard and inviting our editors to do what they presently are disallowed from doing: basing content on their own assessments of what is actually "important" ....
.
All of that is central to the whole problem of "topical rebellions" against our WP:P&G (which rapidly spill into throwing WP:CIV and WP:NPA out the window), and some other walled-garden issues (ITN, DYK, FAC, and several others come to mind). These policy observations apply well beyond the core content policies themselves, including to guidelines on titles, style questions, notabilty, and other considerations, except where a subject has its own guideline-level (not WP:PROJPAGE essay) naming conventions page, MoS page, subject notability guideline or whatever (and some of those need re-examination and revision; much of their text dates to the 2000s, and is often problematic, especially with regard to topics that don't get a lot of editorial attention; but that'll be an issue for another time). The matter recently got raised again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#General Sanctions (Darts), a very typical case where a niche subject with long-term "this is our topic" editors collide with other editors and it turns into a long-term battleground.
As I recall from the original discussion, the first idea was to revise WP:PROJPAGE, but it's not checked all that often, is not a policy, and is aimed only at wikiprojects' output, so it doesn't address topical PoV-pushing and walled-garden behavior by factions or tagteams that are not wikiprojects, nor individuals with this kind of bent. So, the idea after that was to revise WP:CONLEVEL with a WP:CONVENUE add-on (usurping the WP:CONVENUE shortcut from my essay, which may be useful for some points/wording, along with WP:PROJPAGE). Thebiguglyalien drafted something in a sandbox here, and Snow Rise had some quibbles with it (one of which got mentioned at the thread linked up top), but everyone got busy and it fell by the wayside. For my part, I think much of that draft is correct, but it over-states a few things, and glosses over a few others, and is about 10× too long; the whole concept needs to be compressed into a couple of concise sentences, a single paragraph; the community would not be willing to accept a large and complex policy addition, per the WP:CREEP principle.
I'm not certain how to proceed, but think this should proceed, even if takes some time and work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
no discrete group of editors gets to make and enforce rules outside of established process, and thereby sidestep the normal community vetting of proposed guidelines– Snow Rise's summary of what we want to accomplish
{{
Historical}}
, or updated to ecapsulate actual current best practice in the topic); or they are not innocuous and contain conflicts with other P&G, in which case they need to be repaired (whether actively followed or not), and that might entail RfCs and even a new
WP:PROPOSAL process (a result of which might be {{
Rejected}}
). There are also a lot of
WP:PROJPAGE essays, in which various wikiproject try to assert style (most often section layout) preferences, but these are mostly ignored. Where they are not and also are not problematic, they should be make into MoS subpages instead of wikiproject style-advice essays.The vast majority of the "defy a guideline I don't like" disruption is against some particular provision in a central guideline, like MOS:CAPS and its WP:NCCAPS derivative, or sometimes worse, like ignoring aspects of core content policy to push agendas in particular topics (WWII/Nazis/Jews in Eastern Europe; various fringe or religion subjects; a number hot-button topics in Western and especially American politics; etc.). The topical "guidelines" like MOS:PAK and MOS:COMICS and WP:NCPARTY and WP:NEVENTS are rarely the source of the problem.
But, sure, various pages with {{
Guideline}}
on them probably need community review for updating (and often paring) or even for demotion to essays or {{
Historical}}
, especially when they represent hardly any input from anyone and/or they are out-of-step with consensus practice. It's not really clear how to go about this the best way. Generally it's likely to be a matter of
WP:VPPOL referenda, but is apt to cause significant drama, especially if the "guideline" in question is the product of a wikiproject and they happen to like it. One such demotion was "
WP:Manual of Style/Computing", which was principally authored by only two or three editors, and was basically a pile of opinated
WP:CREEP that didn't serve an encyclopedia-building need. Contrast with
WP:Manual of Style/Computer science which dated to the same era (as a PROJPAGE) and recently passed a PROPOSAL to become part of MoS; that was a page with significantly more community input, by people who knew better what they were talking about, to address actual encyc.-writing needs instead of impose personal-preference style pecadilloes, and subject to considerable revision after community input. Big difference. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, don't you think "château" is a well assimilated loanword? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 13:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Why did you want the Walt Disney Company to move to Disney in the first place? While it is a common name, it is not the only important Disney. You know Walt Disney himself, right? Please read the guidelines, think, and learn from your actions. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
About|the company|the company founder|Walt Disney}}
would resolve any navigational issue. There's a weird fandom-driven "local consensus" happening at that page to defy
WP:AT policy and the
WP:DAB guideline. It's silly (most especially since
Disney still redirects straight to the company despite that recent discussion). This case not any different from
Heinz. The company, H. J. Heinz Company, formerly Heinz Noble & Company, now a subsidiary and brand of larger company
Kraft Heinz after a 2015 merger, is the PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. The COMMONNAME of the company-cum-brand is simply Heinz, and the founder,
Henry J. Heinz is notable and would be referred to on second mention in a biographical context simply as "Heinz".
Heinz doesn't even have a disambiguation hatnote pointing to him, though it could have one; it was probably thought unnecessary since he is mentioned and linked in the first line of the article. If you went and proposed moving
Heinz to
H. J. Heinz Company,
Heinz (company),
Heinz (brand) or some other name, you'd be
WP:SNOW opposed because such a name would not fit WT:AT and WP:DAB requirements (see also
Talk:Heinz/Archives/2015#Requested move 26 March 2015). The difference is that Heinz, unlike Disney, doesn't have a walled-garden fanbase who want things a particular way to suit their
WP:ILIKEIT preferences instead of following our
WP:P&G like every other subject does. Some day the company article will be at
Disney where it belongs, though I'll leave it to someone else to get that done. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
16:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving articles in January! I remember Ewa Podleś on the Main page, and have - believe it or not - two musical DYK. Shalom chaverim. On vacation, with something for your sweet tooth -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Today: the performance of Anna Nekhames -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and a few new vacation pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, SMcCandlish
You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, we don't or shouldn't be using "must" anywhere in MoS or any other guideline unless describing a policy or technical requirement.
@ SMcCandlish, this is wrong. Here's a list of five statements in the main MOS page that use the word must. Notice the absence of policy and technical requirements:
Do you see any here that ought to be presented as mere "should" statements – like, you "should" use proper punctuation at the end of a sentence, but it's sometimes okay if you don't? I don't.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content says:
If something is actually required, even if it is "only" required by the rules of proper English grammar, then it should be indicated as a "must", not a "should". It is unfair and needlessly confusing to tell editors that something merely should be done this way when we are actually requiring it. There has never been a rule relegating the use of words like must to pages that say "policy" in a box at the top. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
A note for my talk-page stalkers – here's my opposition vote comment:
The "even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C" portion of this is not acceptable at all: "Movement government structures may also refer UCoC enforcement cases or appeals, even those which would not normally be in the scope of the U4C, to the U4C." Nope. U4C has to stay within its scope or this will just turn into a "forum-shop my buddies to get a result the community denied me" kangaroo court. This even directly contradicts previous rulemaking in the same document: "The U4C will not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC, or its enforcement."
This is also problematic (aside from the grammar error in it): "Provides a final interpretation of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC if the need arises, in collaboration with community members enforcement structures". This "collaboration" is undefined, and too vague to be meaningful.
There may be other issues with it as well, but these two parts alone were enough to trigger my immediate opposition. Policy writing is hard, and the drafters of this are not trying or thinking hard enough yet.
The vote is somehow only open until 2024-02-02. Can anyone say "rush job" and "ramrod"?
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I recommend you undo your Plant Descriptions thread closure at WT:MOS. As you know from your own work on MOS:CS and your recent proposal to add it to the general WP MOS, the thread is indeed absolutely an MOS issue, WP:BOTANY does not have its own MOS under active development. It's also not a sourcing matter -- Meteorquake is describing the order in which content sections should be presented, and why it being unorganized as now causes confusion, which seems like exactly the kind of thing MOS:CS is set up around.
Meteorquake was correctly told to check with WT:BOTANY. But as this can be nothing other than a style issue, and as BOTANY has no MOS project set up yet, the thread is improperly closed, and the description and edit summary are inaccurate. SamuelRiv ( talk) 00:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
"BOTANY has no MOS project set up yet" doesn't even really make sense. There is no such thing as a wikproject's "MOS project". The MOS:CS discussion is about the nonsensical situation that we have a long-standing style advice page that is actually followed and has MOS:FOO shortcuts, i.e. is basically treated as if it's part of MoS, but it not titled, tagged, and categorized as one, but as a wikiproject style essay. That WP:BOTANY has no corresponding page, either as a guideline or as an essay, is just immaterial. The vast majority of wikiprojects have never generated a style advice essay, much less gotten it elevated to MoS guideline status, because most topics do not have style matters we need to address that are topic-specific. The lack of more such essays and guidelines is generally desirable, for WP:CREEP and especially WP:MOSBLOAT reasons: We don't need more rules than we already have (actually need fewer of them), most especially style rules, which are subject to more dispute than any other kind. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For noting that unencyclopedic detail was inserted into the Brunswick Corporation and taking prompt action, exemplifying scrutiny, precision and community service! gidonb ( talk) 14:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
Hi, I would like to bring this problem to your attention. The behaviour of this user seems strange to me; for example you, and I trust you very much, put vecchio in italics, why then did I, who followed the same logic, according to this user get it wrong? However, I follow the indications of a very famous and renowned English dictionary, so I'm not using italics at random. JackkBrown ( talk) 03:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
lang|it|...}}
which produces the italics and also does language encoding". —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
04:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@
Martinevans123,
Necrothesp,
Julietdeltalima, and
MapReader:: It's unlikely that the short forms (or at least the semi-short one) constitute "an Americanism omitting vital words". There is likely dialectal variation on this even within the UK itself. There's a whole book about the subject of "She gave him a book" versus "She gave a book to him" construction variety across British English itself:
Gerwin, Johanna (2014). Ditransitives in British English Dialects. Topics in English Linguistics ser., no. 50.3. De Gruyter Mouton.
ISBN
9783110352146.
Probably something to get at a library (perhaps through inter-library loan) unless you have access to such material via some kind of institutional account. It's one of those stupid-expensive academic volumes, at US$138. My own n-grams showed broad usage distribution when it came to the age phrasing. The thread's now archived at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 227#Aged etc, but in summary: it's probably good that we did not get toward instituting some "rule" about this, based on anecdotal speculation about what sounds best to any of us. Best left to editorial discretion at a particular article (even a particular sentence, e.g. one might have an early sentence use the long form and a later sentence use one of the shorter ones to avoid unnecessary repetitive verbiage). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, SMcCandlish! Hey, here's a title caps question for you. Shouldn't " Sitting on Top of the World" actually be "Sitting On Top of the World", with the word "on " capitalized? I was sorta thinking it should, because MOS:TITLECAPS says to capitalize "the first word in a compound preposition (e.g. Time Out of Mind)". I'm not sure though, so, what do you think? — Mudwater ( Talk) 15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I'm asking is that I'm planning on creating an article about Sitting On Top of the Blues, an album by Bobby Rush, and I want to use the appropriate capitalization for that. — Mudwater ( Talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
So anyway, "Sitting on Top of the World" and Sitting on Top of the Blues are what to use. Broad advice that serves well on virtually all style questions: If there's any doubt, presume it's poorly founded and just follow the most applicable general MoS rule, as a default. (If you think some codified exception to it might apply but are not sure, presume it does not.) If you skirt the rule based on subjective doubt, it invites unnecessary dispute which would likely not arise otherwise. Put another way, if you can imagine some doubt, leave it to someone else with a bee in their bonnet about it to make the case that the doubt is well-founded and that an exception applies or should be made. Don't do the work for them (you'll find it thankless, since such propositions always meet with objection from others). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Template:R from project 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/2024 February 20 § Template:R from project until a consensus is reached. — a smart kitten[ meow 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:Blockquote paragraphs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving quality articles in February. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment, and at Talk:Yemen on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:Ram Mandir on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jessintime ( talk) 19:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
They're at least one size too big for you. Tony (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, SMcCandlish. Thanks for your previous help with adjusting inaccurate terminology on the Dahua Technology page. In an effort to update the article, I put up a new request on the Talk page and thought you may want to have a look. Happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks, Caitlyn23 ( talk) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SMcCandlish. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I know we haven't always seen eye to eye on certain items, but you're easily one of the most knowledgeable editors out there about MOS matters and I respect your point-of-view. My question is about linking from infoboxes. Over the past couple of years, infoboxes have been gradually added to several featured biography articles. Many of these articles have links to list of works or awards for quick reference for example, Alec Guinness has a link to works. Does this practice violate the MOS? Is this spelled out anywhere? Should it be? Thanks for any feedback you can provide! Nemov ( talk) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As to the question: Is this only about links that go out to another article like Alec Guinness on stage and screen, or ones that link in-article to a section below? I think with regard to the Guinness case (and similar stuff is very often done at band and album and single articles, to link to discographies, to previous/next album in chronological sequence, to album from song, etc.; and there are many other such cases), this is basically an integration of navbox features into the infobox, to avoid having a separate right-hand navbox sidebar. In many cases, it's going to be technically redundant with a page-bottom navbox, but there seems to be widespread community tolerance of providing multiple forms of navigation to account for the different ways various individual readers respond to information-architectural features. E.g. navboxes themselves are technically reundant to categories and vice-versa. This is covered in a general way at WP:CLNT.
I just searched that page for the word "infobox" and it does not appear. I searched
MOS:INFOBOX for "nav", and the relevant material there is this: "As with navigation templates, the purpose of the infobox is for its utility, not appearance; therefore, infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative. ... Like navigation templates, infoboxes should avoid flag icons. For more information about flag icons, see MOS:FLAG. ... Other types of templates: Wikipedia:Navigation templates – article footers designed to provide links to several related articles". That's it. Nothing relevant for a "nav" search at
WP:WikiProject Infoboxes.
Template:Infobox provides an example of merging an infobox into {{
Sidebar}}
as a sub-box (and the implication is that it works the other way around, too, since {{
Infobox}}
and more specific infoboxes based on that meta-template also support the sub-box functionality).
There seems to be no pro or con guideline material (unless it's in some other page) that pertains to having navigational features in infoboxes (either as line-items like in the Guinness case, or as sub-boxes). Per the lead material at MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox primarily serves as a nutshell that "summarizes key features of the page's subject" ("features" is rather poor wording; I'm going to go change that to "facts" or "details") and "show[s] information relevant to the article subject"; "relevant" at least in theory could include some navigational material to closely related articles (I'm more skeptical regarding links to sections within the same article). There appears to be broad acceptance, so far, of navigational features also being present in infoboxes, at least in certain types of infoboxes and in certain forms, but it's not clear whether this is actually a best practice. So, something to perhaps raise as a question at WT:MOSINFOBOX. History that occurs to me is that WP's infoboxes actually originated as a form of navigation, and were first implemented at articles that were part of a series on related subjects. They were only later generalized to other sorts of articles because their features were thought useful. Given the level of discord that arises about infoboxes, I'm hesitant to say more, ha ha. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, done some work on the page, added more reviews, noted your kind edits, would you please give a second look. I sincerely think this work is noticeable and feed into a very present discussion on AI; the book is very opinionated, and perhaps this is the reason why its Wikipedia page reads as opinionated, though I did my best to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey,
Does WP:MOSBIO have any guidance on how we name UK High Court justices in articles outside of their respective biographies? I'm currently working on rescuing a draft where it's necessary to make reference to a High Court ruling and the judge who issued it. The sources about the ruling itself all describe the judge as Mr Justice <name>. I can't quite tell if this is something that's covered by MOS:JOBTITLE or an odd application of MOS:CREDENTIAL, or if there's some other more specific guidance elsewhere. Have you any inklings on this? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I think what's happening here is also that people confuse forms of address used when writing to people or introducing them at a function, with how to write about them in the third person. Thus you can sometimes run into things like "the Rt Hon. Alex Crabapple" in running text, despite HONORIFICS saying not to do that. Should just be fixed when encountered without making a big deal out of it, unless someone's going around doing this all over the place, then they need to be pointed at the guideline and asked to stop.
There's a closely related problem in which some editors from
WP:PEERAGE and
WP:ROYALTY have gone around in a
WP:FAITACCOMPLI manner, misusing (over numerous objections) the |name=
parameter of {{
infobox officeholder}}
or {{
infobox person}}
to hold an honorific form of address that is neither the name nor how the person would normally be written about in third person, but how they would be addressed in a letter or when introduced at a speaking engagement. See, e.g.,
Gwynneth Knowles,
Margaret Thatcher,
David Cameron, etc. This is confusing to readers and editors alike, and not even really encyclopedic information, since virtually zero of our readers need to write a letter to David Cameron, and even if they did,
WP is not advice on the etiquette of how to best do that (though the form of direct address arguably might be coverable somewhere in the article on the general sort of title). The only way to resolve that mess is probably going to be with a VPPOL-level RfC. I don't relish it, because it's going to be yet another instance of topical specialists in conflict with general MoS rules, and that almost always leads to heat and drama. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
"Justice Gwynneth Knowles" or whatever would be appropriate, when it's necessary to indicate that they're a justice, but after that's established, just "Knowles" would usually work.Awesome, I'll make that change in a moment.
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Lang-ang/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 08:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Per this AE report you are formally reminded to remain civil in MOS discussions, that you remain under sanction, and that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia. I expect that if you end up at AE again the result will be significantly more severe. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
In particular, in this case I demonstrated that while I had displayed some civility issues, many of the accusations were false, especially with regard to "assuming bad faith", which I provably did not do, and which is what my sanction actually pertains to, not incivililty. "Assuming bad faith" and "incivility" are not in any way synonymous. I would expect that an AE admin would understand all of this deeply and clearly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in March! - I uploaded Madeira vacation pics (from back home, at least the first day) and remember Aribert Reimann. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Just so I don't get it wrong...I'm fixin' to move Probationary Firefighter to lower case. How does your reading of JOBTITLES incline you? Primergrey ( talk) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for intruding - I stupidly created this page with a dot in the title, and do not know how to remove it. Roman Science: Origins, Development, and Influence to the Later Middle Ages. Can you help? Thanks. Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 11:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish. I am about to start an arbitration request. I don't have high expectations and I am even thinking I may get an indefinite block as boomerang, but it is something I have to address. I hope I don't get blocked and I may not get an indefinite but just in case I wanted to highlight my appreciation for the time you have taken in responding to my queries in a detailed and quality manner. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I continue monitoring for new pieces treating McQuillan's Resisting AI as they appear, and one just came out in the International Journal of Communication 18(2024), Book Review 967–970; see the text here.
Could the notability warning be removed? Thanks for your help and Happy Easter. Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 17:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish. Sorry it seems easier to ask than find the relevant sections of MOS, but should reference be in inside or outside parenthesis (when used in article text)? Blah blah (Blah[1]),...
Seems logical but Blah blah (Blah)[1],...
looks more in keeping with the way articles are styled. I'm betting it's covered somewhere, but I couldn't find anything at
MOS:PAREN. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t°
16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Blah blah (yak),[1]..., since superscripted footnotes always come after the comma, or semicolon, or period/full-point.)
My personal take on this, and what I seem to observe in frequent use, is to do Blah blah (yak),[1]...
if the citation covers the entire parenthetical. In such a circumstance, Blah blah (yak[1]),...
and Blah blah (yak),[1]...
are actually logically equivalent, and a lot of editors prefer the appearance of the latter. Also use Blah blah (yak),[1]...
if the citation covers both the parenthetical and the rest of the sentence that precedes it, obviously. When it doesn't, we'd be more expecting Blah blah[1] (yak[2]),...
or Blah blah[1] (yak),[2]...
. But always do Blah blah (yakkety[1] yak[2]),...
, or more fully Blah blah[1] (yakkety[2] yak[3]),...
, any time the citation covers only part of the claim in the parenthetical.
That MoS section should probably be updated to say something like what I just did (but more concisely), to better reflect actual practice, and to not require Blah blah (yak[1]),...
in circumstances for which Blah blah (yak),[1]...
is directly equivalent. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I updated Template:SfnRef/doc recently. I think there was a point you were making in the documentation regarding when to use templates that make parentheses. In the parts I updated, I just used the most common templates, {{ sfn}} and {{ harvnb}}. So I wanted to invite you to make any changes or ask any questions. Rjjiii ( talk) 04:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
should be used instead, except in an article using CS2 or some other means of outputing full citations that don't parenthesize the dates. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
18:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)We could use your help with 'what', 'which', 'to' (twice), 'in', 'froissés', 'déchirés', and 'like', and perhaps 'papier', at Talk:But what about the noise.... — BarrelProof ( talk) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Pepitos 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/2024 April 16 § Pepitos until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in April! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Since you had some lengthy input here regarding the reported user's conduct, I was wondering what you suggest about a recurrence of the behaviour at the New York City article, such as this biting of a new user, and this one, which wasn't much better. I don't particularly want to create a new ANI, but will if necessary. Seasider53 ( talk) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
An ancient Greek verb ending in "-izein" has the infinitive ending, while "-izo" shows the first person singular present indicative ending. Traditional dictionaries (Liddell and Scott etc) list verbs under the 1st singular form, while for other purposes the infinitve may be preferred. Not sure it makes much difference. AnonMoos ( talk) 08:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish. Thank you for your work on Kailaasa. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, when you use {{cite AFM}} could you please also use {{sfn whitelist|CITEREFO'Donovan1856}} to prevent the false Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors it causes? Thanks, DuncanHill ( talk) 22:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
|John O'Donovan=
|1856=
stuff that had to be done the way the AFM template was formerly mis-coded (with |author=
AKA |last=
wrongly containing the entire author name). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfn whitelist}}
thing. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
sfn whitelist}}
template, but it seems like a lot of work to do and then later undo for a temporary display problem that doesn't actually even affect the citations' functionality.
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving articles in May! - Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up weak citations at Neoplasticism, which has the potential to be a GA. I've bumped up against the question of what to do when there is a need to cite more than one issue of a journal in the same year. The ideal would be {{sfnp|Smith|May 1924|page=123}} but that is interpreted as Smith & May 1924 p.123. I've kludged around it using ref={{sfnref to make 1924a, 1924b etc., but it is far from ideal: in context, Smith (May 1924) p.123 would be "nicer" and easier for inexperienced editors to use. Have I missed a trick or would it need a template enhancement? (If it would, whether it would be 'value for money' is a whole other question.) What do you think? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
{{sfnref}}
is hardcoded to only accept date parameter input in the form YYYY or YYYYx, where x is a single letter. You can't even do YYYYxz. This whole "1924a" and "1924b" stuff is actually a poor idea (imported wholesale from one or another of the offsite citation styles, probably Chicago/Turabian, though I misremember). It's a poor idea on WP because it presumes that the sources will be listed in a and b order and that this order will never change, which is an assumption that cannot be depended upon in a wiki. The editor adding the material might have put them in backwards order, or some later editor might have moved them around, or another editor might have added a third source from same author and year that goes between the original a and b. It would actually be better for {{sfnref}}
to support more specific date formats like Monthname YYYY, as you desire, though it would take some testing with a bunch of templates to ensure that the #CITEREF... anchor ouput this generated actually worked with everything like {{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
. For right now, the solution still actually is to do |ref={{
sfnref|Smith|1924a}}
. A more manual alternative would be to do |ref=Smith (May 1924)
, and do citations to this in the form <ref>[[#Smith (May 1924)|Smith (May 1924)]], p. 123.</ref>
. There are articles in which I have done this a few times because of an important source author churning out several articles per year. If same page has to be cited more than once, then a ref name is needed, e.g.: <ref name="Smith (May 1924), p. 123">[[#Smith (May 1924)|Smith (May 1924)]], p. 123.</ref>
and a later <ref name="Smith (May 1924), p. 123" />
. Code-wise, it's a bit ugly, but for the end reader is much more sensible than "Smith (1924b), p. 123", especially since we cannot (per
WP:REUSE) expect that every reuse of WP content will include a link between the "1924b" string and the intended specific citation. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
... whether it would be 'value for money' is a whole other question.. "No further action at this time". -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Got edit warring there again. Geogene ( talk) 21:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Blockquote/to right of image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 12:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VampaVampa ( talk) 20:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Cue sports writers and broadcasters has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pool writers and broadcasters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Snooker writers and broadcasters has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/multiterm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Term/multiterm-function has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The redirect User:2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047 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/2024 June 2 § User:2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047 until a consensus is reached. Nickps ( talk) 15:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:AZBilliards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 10:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, would you be alright with this redirect [27] being deleted to make way for an article I've written on the subject: Draft:Hypothyroidism in dogs, thanks. Traumnovelle ( talk) 22:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
Main|Hypothyroidism in dogs}}
if you didn't do that already. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Gbq/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — sbb ( talk) 08:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey Gary Oldman Person!
I recall you helped me once w/ a Bette Davis section hatnote indent. This one is a bit different, as it's an inquiry about a page-topper hatnote (forgive/correct me, if terminologies are incorrect).
So with some similarly titled things, I think there are instances where simple About-For, Distinguish-For, etc. etc. all work just fine, or even just single About, For, Distinguish, et al. There is also Redirect-Distinguish-For, which I've used at least once. But I can't fathom exactly why there isn't an About-Distinguish-For?? I know I've edited a few recently where I felt that was the best choice, yet realized it's non-existent. I feel like it's close enough to Redirect-Distinguish-For to be worth formatting for usage. Using two separate hatnotes, in which the second ends up creating a line break/second line for no reason is no good.
For just a small example—not the best—let's use this indie film, Departure (2015). Stub, needs work. But About "2015 film". Not to be confused with 2008 film. For other films with the same title, see Departure (disambiguation) § Films. Just pretend these are bigger films, if needed. First is to identify or clarify article, rather than what redirected them there. Second, this particular alternate title that could cause confusion is the MOST notable one that is worth singling out for distinguishment, because it's the foreign-language Oscar winner. And lastly, the disambiguation is not just general departures, but a list of a few other films from various years that are also titled Departure (in some spelling/grammar variation). If need be, replace these with any Major/Minor/Other popular names of nouns!
I thought there might be some way to manipulate the template within the template, to insert the {For} within an About-Distinguish-custom text type. Idk. But alas, that's where I'm at and I seem to be having trouble articulating the necessity, imo, for one. -- Cinemaniac86 Talk Stalk 05:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
In this case, I would simply use {{
For|other films with the same title|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}}
. I really can't see a good rationale for {{
About-distinguish|the 2015 film|Departures (2008 film)}}
, since neither the title nor the year are a match, and there is no actual reason to try to single out any other movie at all (award or no) among such a number of films. Anyone who is so aware of the details of obscure Oscars categories is already going to know it was a 2008 Best Foreign Film winner not a 2015 winner. I.e., there is far more confusion potential with
Departure (1931 film),
Departure (1938 film), and
Departure (1986 film). Anyone who just encountered a "I really recommend the film Departure" or something will not know which it is, especially if it was in a context like a film class or some other venue that was not wholly focused on recent releases. If
The Departure (2015 film) or a
Departures (2015 film) also existed (or something like "
Chicken Nuggets of Doom, a 2015 Elbonian film re-titled Departure in some markets"), those would also be very likely confusion candidates.
But there are already too many to call them out specifically in a hatnote. {{
For|other films with the same or similar titles|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}}
is really what is needed (without any other DAB hatnote). And while it doesn't apply to this specific obscure indy film, for many films there could also be a directly related soundtrack album, novel, video game, sequel, earlier or remake film version, derived TV series, overall franchise article, or something else to disambiguate from the 2015 (or whatever year) film.
Maybe there could be a use case for a {{
About-distinguish-for}}
, I don't think
Departure (2015 film) is that use case. And while it would be easy to create such a template, if it does not see [appropriate] use, it will just get deleted at
WP:TFD. Wikipedia's been disambiguating things for 23+ years, and has done so fine without such a template, so it's unlikely to prove useful. It's important to remember that these hatnotes exist only to help readers be sure they have arrived at the right article when they just guess at a title, or click on something that provides the title but insufficent context for that person to positively identify it among the alternatives. A purpose they do not serve is trying to "educate" or PoV-sway readers with an editorial opinion about what is most popular or important or notable among things with kinda-similar names from different time periods. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in June! - Today we have a centenarian story (documentation about it by Percy Adlon) and an article that had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey SMcCandlish, I'm fixing {{ Xtn}}'s appearance in dark mode, and I'm not sure I understand the hidden comment left there. Does {{ Xtn/sandbox}} work? Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 17:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
color: initial
, various of these xt-family of templates do not have consistent link-coloring behavior. As for dark mode, I'm not sure which dark mode you mean. I don't see a "dark mode" option in the desktop version (in Vector Legacy, which is what I use). Regardless, this CSS stuff would probably be better moved to a TemplateStyles page at this point. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I would think the thing to do would be to have color: initial
applied by default, and override it selectively for particular conditions in which whatever custom result you want to apply under those particular conditions has been well-tested.
I'm highly skeptical that a specific color such as color: black
should ever be set, since it incorrectly presupposes that the conditions of the surrounding block will be known at all times and will be consistent from one context to another, which is not correct (though when it is wrong will probably not be very often). While we can be certain that general running text in an article is going to look a particular way, we have no way to predict what a particular templated condition is going to look like (various templates colorize blocks of text as to background, text color, or both). And these xt-type templates aren't for article text anyway, but generally for use in internal documentation.
When initial
is assigned to a non-inherited propery, like display
, it defaults to the CSS spec's default. When initial
is assigned to an inherited property like color
, it inherits the value most recently defined for that context in the stylesheet stack (if there is one, otherwise it gets the CSS-spec default or perhaps the browser default, if they different, and depending on the browser). There must have been a specific reason that both unset and inherit
were not getting the job done properly in this case, but I wouldn't recall what the specifics were after so long. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
13:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I
asked about this in the talk page, but no one answered - seeing as you're the one who wrote the original clarification of All:
vs all:
could you please give that talk section a read? I'd have requested an edit to the page, but I'd rather someone else confirm first. –
2804:F14:809B:301:18CD:9D72:3518:7DDA (
talk)
19:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)