This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

October 2020 Information

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Adam in Islam on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

One party to the thread is still subject to a relevant topic-ban, so it should not continue.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

---

 Done

When you're able to, I would appreciate you reading my comments in this ANI thread. I'd like you to be aware of this because in your comment here, you were the one user who agreed with me that it was probable the user behind the "race and intelligence" RFC was a parody account. I'd like you to be aware that I knew more about this than I initially let on, because I was a member of the Slack server where the parody trolling was being coordinated. I posted a link to the Slack server in the ANI thread, although the server has been deleted now. I'm sorry for not disclosing this detail earlier; in the earlier arbitration request I was hoping I could present a case for what I knew what was going on without betraying any private information.

You might be interested to know that when the same people were doing the same thing at RationalWiki, there was a nearly identical situation involving someone else. There was one user, who called himself "Concerned", who knew exactly what was being done to these articles and tried to stop it, but nobody else listened to him. You can see an example of that in this discussion, as well as the subsequent discussion directly below it. Like me, "Concerned" was blocked for making what everyone else assumed to be a false accusation, eventually permanently.

It isn't all that important to me whether I get blocked again at ANI, but I'd like to know what I should do with the information I have from Slack about what's been done to these articles. While the parody material was being inserted I made every effort stop it, and my efforts were both futile and widely regarded as disruptive. A few users are telling me that I should email ArbCom about what's been happening, but I know emailing ArbCom will result in no action, because that's always been the result when other people have emailed ArbCom about similar issues in the past. Is there any other course of action you'd recommend here? 2600:1004:B150:FD91:ED6E:C62F:3958:DF62 ( talk) 19:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've commented in that thread. TLDR: Send the private evidence to ArbCom's e-mail address. Your t-ban is still extant. And, I'm generally opposed to broad IP-range blocks.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I need some time to think about how to best approach this issue. I remain convinced that if I email ArbCom out of the blue I'm unlikely to receive a response, but perhaps there's some way for me to raise the issue with them in public first (not with any private information; just with a general summary of what I would like to email them about). 2600:1004:B118:7657:E86C:A065:4028:3E46 ( talk) 22:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You could bring it up at WT:ARBCOM. However, I tend to agree with respondents at the ANI that bringing this up on-wiki at all is a violation of your T-ban, so just using ArbCom-L is the most sensible approach.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I know from from observation that most messages sent to the ArbCom mailing list by non-arbitrators get no acknowledgment or response. Other times, ArbCom says they'll discuss something and get back to you, and then you never hear from them again. I was in Kirkegaard's Slack server while he was trying to correspond with ArbCom about their having blocked him indefinitely without giving a reason, and he was sharing his emails with the Slack, so that's how I know what it's like to try to discuss this type of issue with ArbCom via email. If I'm going to present email evidence to ArbCom, it will only make a difference if I do it in a way that minimizes the odds of it being ignored or forgotten about.

ArbCom almost opened a case about some of these issues back in May. If there's eventually an arbitration case, I think ArbCom is much more likely to look at email evidence if it relates to a case that's open, so that's the thing I've been waiting for. 2600:1004:B114:CC1A:DC4:E0D3:7759:CF73 ( talk) 02:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)>

Well, it is the procedural path open to you. And if they came close to taking a case about this in May, then more evidence will only make it more likely they'll do so next time it comes up. I guess what I would suggest is sending a summary of what evidence you have and why it matters, then sending the evidence, and not waiting for them to get back to you before you send the evidence. Even if it doesn't trigger a case, it's at least in their ArbCom-L box, and will be there when someone else brings up the issue again later. Which is pretty much certain to happen. Hotbed topics go to RFARB more than once.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(2nd_nomination) it seems that there might be an arbitration case related to this topic in the near future. Or at least, I think there ought to be one. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic. What I'll probably do is wait and see whether a case happens so that I can present my evidence in that context. And if eventually becomes clear that there won't be a case, I'll send it to ArbCom anyway so that they can at least have it, even though I know they're unlikely to do anything in that situation.

When there was a similar set of issues on these articles a few months ago, you agreed with me that there needed to be an arbitration case, but didn't want to request one yourself. Do you still feel that way? It seems unlikely to me that anyone else is going to request one, so the reality might be that the only way for there to be a case is if you do it. 2600:1004:B10D:344F:A91F:1AAC:4633:6C5F ( talk) 19:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more likely there'll first be a new string of WP:AE filings and other "noticeboardings", and some WP:ARCA requests, since there is already a decided WP:ARBRI case about this which already authorized discretionary sanctions. It would basically take failure of AE, ANI, NPOVN, etc., to resolve renewed disruption in the topic area for ArbCom to open an all-new case about it. (Well, absent something unusual, like administrative misbehavior in the topic that called for a desysopping.) ArbCom these days is very resistant to taking cases at all, and especially resistant to taking ones that it sees as "redundant" or "unripe". The existing avenues will likely need to be exhausted more first. But ya never know! If a good enough argument can be made that something crucial was missing from the original RI case, that might be good enough grounds for an RI2 case. I don't want to file such a case request myself. I can barely tolerate forays into RFARB and ARCA. Just the last couple of days of WP:DRAMA at ARCA have been enough for me for months. :-/  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor has been reminded of their topic ban multiple times, and this discussion is a clear violation of that ban. – dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I'll hat this.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Talk:George Floyd protests on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Small text has been used for scientific authorities in taxoboxes since 30 May 2004 (well before I started editing here!). The style seems very consistently used in article text as well. But in response to a query at Template_talk:Speciesbox#Small_text, I tried to find the convention in the MoS. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Scientific names is the obvious place, but it's not there. Do you know whether it is written up, and if so where? Even if it is elsewhere, it could usefully be added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Scientific names (which could also usefully have a short cut). Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever been codified, except maybe in MOS:ORGANISMS. I kind of forgot about that. Now that the breeds capitalization debate is over, that page can probably be finalized for the WP:PROPOSAL process. Anyway, yes, it's clearly an established (even if not written-down) convention here, i.e. already has consensus. So it should probably be added to MOS:TEXT#Scientific_names as suggested. Might as well just go insert it, using that rationale. If people want to argue it out, then so be it, but they probably won't.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I added a bit (with wording largely taken from MOS:ORGANISMS). It's not quite the right place, because Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Scientific names is under "use of italics", but it will do until MOS:ORGANISMS is accepted (do move on with this, though I still don't agree about breeds!). Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not sure I do either. It just went back and forth for so long, with so many detailed and equal-but-opposite pro and con arguments, that I went neutral and and ended up just RfCing it. It's one of those myriad things that can't please everyone no matter which option was chosen. A decade from now we might undo it; depends on whether more non-specialist sources like newspapers lower-case or upper-case breed names (besides those that contain or are clearly proper names). As for placement for now, I'll add a cross-ref. from the section on small text, maybe. I think that's in MOS:ACCESS.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: done.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – via e-mail. Short version: the ARCA discussion itself mentions several, and links to a page listing them.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I would be curious to know who those two admins are who regained their bit. I'm sure the circumstances are very different and in the case of BHG, I and many are of the opinion that her desysoping was a heavy-handed remedy even if, according to some, it was a close call. You can email me in confidence if you don't want to make it public. I won't use it anywhere - my discretion is still something I can be trusted for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've done my own homework in the meantime (it took an hour) and I only came across 2 admins who have been resysoped by RfA in the last 5 years. They were both returning after their bits had expired for lack of activity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work here. Did anything ever come of it? My eyes were just assaulted by an italicized climbing route title, so I was wondering. —  AjaxSmack  14:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@ AjaxSmack: Forgot about it completely. I would de-italicize it, since nothing in MOS:TEXT or any other part of MoS says to use italics for this. If people want to fight about it, open an RfC on the matter at WT:MOSTEXT. A clear consensus should emerge (based on treatment in reliable sources, including non-specialist ones like newspapers and other encyclopedias) that MoS is correct to not list them as something to italicize, or that MoS is lacking in this regard and should say to italicize them. I think you can guess which way I think that will go. If my dimming memory about this is serving me correctly, the idea of italicizing them was a novel introduction by a climbing-oriented editor, on the theory that a climbing route was somehow "more like" a creative work (book, movie, etc.) than like a hiking trail or a bridge, which of course it is not. The italics idea is not based on any sort of convention established by standards or style manuals outside Wikipedia, nor by any consensus to do it that was arrived at within Wikipedia.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  18:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@ AjaxSmack: Anything going/gone on about this?  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing. I edited one article and got no response. If I get a wild hair, I might do a couple more. —  AjaxSmack  02:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@ AjaxSmack: Lack of a reaction suggests that the single person who was rantily demanding italics for this stuff has moved on to something/somewhere else. There seem to be 56 articles in the category, and there are probably a few secondary mentions (e.g. at notable climber articles), so probably 100 or so pages at most. That's not a huge amount of stuff. Last week, I already de-italiced in about the first third or so of of the articles in the climbing routes category. Hasn't generated a peep.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of vegetarians on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"they go further in some directions than I'm willing to." - thats because you still have a fundamentally good opinion of people and care about others. Whereas I am cynical, assume there is a hidden angenda, and DGAF if I lob a cat amongst the pigeons. I still think WP:AGF is absolutely the worst guideline written and should be nuked from orbit. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 22:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Heh. I presumed you had relevant evidence/experience that I did not. If I have proof, I'll lay out whatever case I think I need to.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Disregard

 – Fine by me. Seems to've been replaced by Category:Place list templates.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Geography and place list templates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen {{ Infobox person/Internet info}}? It is used in 62 infoboxes to add "a person's internet presence". |website= (of the main infobox) is for one "official website". Even ELs are limited per WP:ELMIN and multiple Social Media links are discouraged per WP:ELNO. Use of this seems highly promotional (see the parameters). There is already {{ Infobox YouTube personality}} for people known primarily for Youtube. The template doesn't have a TP. Comments? Should this be nominated for deletion as a back-door method to expand infoboxes with inappropriate info. MB 22:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

MB, I would say yes, since this appears to take no account of WP:EL, nor of previous consensus discussions about what URLs are appropriate in infoboxes. If someone really has more than one official online page, the extant |website= can show more than one. The entire line of template code for that in {{ infobox person}} is |data70={{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|{{{url|}}}}}}}}}}}}, so it is freeform input. One could put in two links to official sites using {{ plainlist}} or whatever.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. MB 03:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Dona nobis pacem

Thank you for article improvements! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

 – This one should merge to Template:Talkback (if either are kept at all now that we have {{ ping}}).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Whisperback has been nominated for merging with Template:Talkback. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

 – This one is old trash.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Defn/doc transclusion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

 – RfC was closed, and this has instead moved to an AfD.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wendy Carlos on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chameria on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Do you know how you match the footnote labels between the footnote marker and the reference list ? I would like to do it on the Wikipedia of another language. Hypuxylun ( talk)

@ Hypuxylun: It varies by template type. It's unfortunately rather complicated (and I don't know it all). The maintenance of almost all those templates is coordinated at Help_talk:CS1, so those who do have the answers will be there.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

Your feedback is requested at Talk:TERF on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done

 – I contested the speedy deletion, since this is a category automatically applied by a template.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Use Commonwealth English requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)