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.

April 2021 Information

An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Rats. I was hoping there was some embarrassing piece-of-trash permastub from 2005 we were going to get rid of. LOL.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Huzzah. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the close over at Talk:Virtual reality headset, I would be happy to initiate an RFC on a WT:Manual of style related to the issue of whether a hyphened form of "virtual-reality" should be used when that's an adjective phrase attached to a noun. I think a wider input would be helpful to settle the matter across all of WP. -- Masem ( t) 22:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, especially since at least three editors are challenging that non-admin close as an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE + WP:NOTAVOTE failure.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Masem: forgot to ping.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 In progress

 – I've asked for clarification before !voting, since the RfC was written only with topical insiders in mind.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" 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 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:SMcCandlish.

I see you belong to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference works group and was wondering if you could help me with a few minor edits to the Dictionary.com page? As I have declared, I am in a COI/paid relationship with Dictionary and am therefore adhering to the Wikipedia rules of seeking assistance from volunteer editors. I was wondering if you could review the requests I made on that talk page on March 3 and 8? Another editor added the COI edit request code which placed these requests into that queue. Those requests now date back to November. If you have the time and inclination, I'd greatly appreciate your assistance. Thank you in advance. Best, LeepKendall ( talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ LeepKendall: I'll try to look into it as time permits (and I have some experience resolving CoI edit requests), but I'm kind of swamped. If much of this has been languishing for a while already, I guess there's not a big hurry. If you don't see action on this stuff begin (from me or someone else) within a week, hit me up again here and I'll try to more explicitly block out some time for it.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:SMcCandlish. I appreciate it, and your quick reply. I've reached out to several volunteers with no reply. LeepKendall ( talk) 15:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey there User:SMcCandlish. As you suggested on the 8th, I'm pinging you to see if you have a little time to review my edit requests on Dictionary.com? I truly appreciate your offer, and your busy-ness. Thank you. LeepKendall ( talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Took a longer break than expected, and am still playing catch-up ....  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

looking for edit summary

hello from DLagasse...Stanton...Can you please show me how to view edit summaries, for example Grabergs recently made an edit on PICHENOTTE and removed external links, and I understand why, now, but I don't see how to look at edit summaries which would have saved me and him the trouble of some back and forth. You can email me if you prefer to answer that way. Thanks a lot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DVQuebec ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@ DVQuebec: Use the page-history feature, toward the top of the page (exactly where it is and what it's called will depend on your site skin and scripts; in my case it's "View history" and toward top right, but you might have it as "History" and just to the right of "Talk" or "Discuss", toward top-left of page). In there, you'll see a list of all edits, from newest on down, including the edit summaries. As for the issue that you're talking about, I've commented in detail at Talk:Pichenotte. PS: I just did a big cleanup pass on the article, but only for basic style and formatting stuff.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

pronunciation...

yes , thanks, I will work on the re-wording as you suggest... a group or family of games... and I will check on pronunciation giudes... we stopped using 'peesh'-nut' because kids would giggle about using the pee word, so we used 'peash' - nut' but I will check pronunciation guide, possibly just a long 'e' with a horizontal line over it . I don't have it on my cellphone keyboard DVQuebec ( talk) 15:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WP has a specific system for doing these "respelling" pronunciation guides; see Template:Respell and Help:Pronunciation respelling key. In short, it is a codified system, not a "change it around as I like" thing. We also need even more strict IPA pron. guides for Eng. and Fr., but that takes a linguistics background (and I have that, so I'll do it, but it's low-priority given the general state of the article).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

text... size

@ DVQuebec: I will increase the text size and make other adjustments you have suggested... busy schedule today but will work on it in the evenings to come DVQuebec ( talk) 17:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't suggest increasing any text size. Rather, the images that contain text inside them need to be large enough to be readable. However, there are too many images with too much text, so in the long run some of these need to be replaced. It's not a big deal (like lowest priority). Just making sure the lead image is legible is good enough for now. The overall organization of the article and the "story" it is telling, with what sources, is way more important to deal with.

Ultimately, there are just too many near-identical images, though. We need one to two good illustration of each board type, a diagram of scoring zones, an illustration of pieces close up (preferably including striker and queen – maybe I can do that, since you sent me pieces!), and perhaps also of pins in the one game type that uses them. At the bottom of the article we could do a WP:Gallery of additional images showing particularly handsome or antique boards, but the short list above is all we really, really need. Most of the text populating these images is text that belongs inside the article body (dimensions, etc.) If it's particular to a particular board, then it belongs (if it's important to include at all) as caption text under the image. So, basically, I think most of the images eventually need replacing. The original pics they are made up of will in many cases be more useful. I'm not sure if you uploaded those to Commons as well, or just these collages.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks !!! for your expansive and insightful work on PICHENOTTE and two questions please...

Greetings Stanton. Thanks so much for your expansive and accurate work on the PICHENOTTE entry. I really appreciate it. The growing accuracy of information about this family of games, now impresses not only me, but my French Canadian friends and relatives. Yahoo! Your additional references to the games of billiards, pool and bocce are expansive and educational, giving readers who have familiarity with those games, a better appreciation for the subtleties of these seemingly simple folk games. Questions please: 1) I would like to ask your advice about the photos on the page. My intention was to make two 'quadrant photos' for each game. One to show just the game itself and the other to show the equipment, players, and the flicking methods. I thought perhaps showing them as thumbnails would be a good idea and then they could be opened and read easily and enjoyed in 'full size mode' - 900 pixel height. But perhaps readers don't realize you can click and open them. And I am having second thoughts. Perhaps there are too many, perhaps the size is wrong. I am also considering removing the quad photo in the introduction, since the intro now perhaps adequately describes a 'family' of games. 2) American Southwest pichenotte I would like to add 'American Southwest pichenotte' in a 'Final Four' mix for the time being, staying open to future considerations. The 'Final Four' Family: 1) Canadian-American carrom, 2) Canadian-American Pitchnut, 3) Canadian American crokinole and 4) American Southwest pichenotte. I plan to remove the India-International game from the quadrant photo in any case, if it stays. The descendants of French Canadian families have settled into the American Southwest, bringing the game of pichenotte with them. There is now a loosely knit but active group in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. The game is different from Canadian Crokinole - different physical dimensions and different rules. We have a mutually respectful relationship with many Canadian makers and players. But for the sake of both games and both 'parties' the differences can be highlighted in a way that is mutually respectful and educational. Your thoughts please, when you have time. DLagasse April 9, 2021 DVQuebec ( talk) 17:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@ DVQuebec: One problem (in point no. 1) about using images people have to click on to read is that this doesn't really work on small mobile devices. It's also an accessibility issue, in that all the embedded text in these images is something blind users can't access, even with screen readers. A third, more minor, issue is WP:REUSE; article sections are best when they fairly well stand alone like mini-articles; if the images in a section are tightly relevant to that section, and they're not all just more and more cross-categorical comparison, this is better material (e.g. for extracting content about a specific game variant). Well-done sections are what we typically base spin-off articles on, when a main article gets too long. Oh, and close relevancy relationship between image and text in a section is also another accessibility boon, since screen readers parse these pages in a strict top-down, left-to-right manner; an image floated to the right will still have its alt text red out in the order of its appearance in the source code of the page (which is why I tweaked the order of a couple of them). For all of these reasons, it's better to use multiple images, with descriptive captions, rather than composites-of-icons pictures with a bunch of text in them pertaining to different sections.

My assumption is that you still have all your original images. I would probably be most helpful to upload those to commons, not just these collages. And please not with SCREAMING ALL-CAPS FILENAMES. Heh. They need not have terribly long names either; the image description page is where details go. As you know from before, I can help with the image cataloguing at Commons. Even if we did use one composite image somewhere, having separate ones available would be a boon.

On Q. 2: I think American Southwest pichenotte could be a difficult sell as an entire section. It would require multiple independent reliable sources (i.e. not from tournament promoters, etc.), that establish it as a separate-ruleset game. If the game itself is not radically different from another version, it should just be covered as a resurgence of regional play of that game in that area, not as a separate game. But if it really is a separate game: tournament promoter materials are probably good enough for establishing what the rules are ( WP:PRIMARYUSE, WP:ABOUTSELF), but it would take various newspaper articles and such, the independent sources, to establish that it's noteworthy enough for us to bother writing about it. And where is this named "American Southwest pichenotte" coming from? It sounds like a descriptive label we've made up. If that's the case, and if this is really a unique game, then why doesn't it have its own name? And what kind of sourcing is there about differences in game equipment, that isn't coming from makers of it like yourself ( WP:COI)?

I'm reminded of bocce, which has turned into a big deal across the US (probably also Canada) especially with indoor courts at large bar-restaurants in suburban to rural areas (where there's enough room). It has gone hand-in-hand with the resurgence of cornhole; places with one often also have the other). The house and regional rules will vary from place to place, but it doesn't make them separate games we need WP article sections about. Same with a lot of pool games, which can have a lot of regional variance, which is mostly non-encyclopedic. We write mostly about nationally and internationally standardized rule sets. I don't want this to sound like "WP cannot write about the SW game"; rather, the bar is kind of high to do it properly.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Pichenotte translating into French

Stanton, greetings, any advice on translating into French ? I have friends and family to help me. Also, it seems someone is going to ask for a citation in the introduction, relative to the 1880 patent for a variant. Assuming that is for the MB Ross game board, would you like me to cite The Crokinole Book? Thanks DVQuebec ( talk) 14:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know French. And I wouldn't bother translating this while it still needs so much work. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. It's more important to get this up to at least Good Article quality first.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ DVQuebec: Je parle francais. What exactly do you need translation of? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done

 – ... poorly. Due to extraneous matters I did not properly parse all of the proposal and ended up posting confusing things. I think it's resolve now.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. Don't worry about the comments, misunderstandings happen and so long everything's cleared up I think we don't need to have any bad thoughts over it. Understandable that you'd wish to take a break for personal reasons. Wish you best, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My condolences

I am sorry to read of the death of your uncle. Please take care of yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My condolences as well. Please take care of yourself and your family in these times. Van Isaac, MPLL ^cont _WpWS 19:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• The header caught my attention: take my condolences as well, and see my talk for a piece of music that played a role in my life and was for a long time believed to have been written for a funeral, Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Oh I'm so sorry to hear about your loss. Take good care. LeepKendall ( talk) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thankee.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Moot

 – RfC closed before I got to it.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rastafari 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 17:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Moot

 – RfC closed before I got to it.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael Flynn on a "Biographies" 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 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Moot

 – RfC closed before I got to it.

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout 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 00:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

According to [1] you're signed up to get 99 RfC invites per month. If you don't mind my asking... is that really a good idea? E Eng 02:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Actually, 99 is just the limit for that one section. SMcCandlish has a combined limit of 377 FRS notices per month across all sections, which is more than three times larger than the number of RFCs posted in the average month. However, nowhere near that number of notices are actually being sent, and the reason for that is the demand for FRS notices has become significantly larger than the number of notices the bot is capable of sending. See Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service#Too large * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically, I'm telling it "no limit", because there are never that many RfCs. The new bot actually sends out far fewer invites than the old one did. I don't get many, at least not by my standards.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

After this was closed, do you think it is worth opening a discussion on the MOS talk page? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@ 1234qwer1234qwer4: Personally, no. If the handful of CfD habitues who have an axe to grind about this want to continue the grinding, they can do that on their own time; I'm not going to open a thread for them and providing a further soapbox for their trivial anti-MoS grievanances. However, I've been away for a while, so if I've missed something and you think there's a need to have an MoS thread about it, please fill me in.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a little note of confusion about the RM at Talk:Crown Dependencies. Do you agree with that? —  BarrelProof ( talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have had to look into it more. At first blush is does look to be comparable to "British Overseas Territories", and is not just a descriptive phrase (i.e., it's not regularly substituted with alternative phrasing like "dependencies of the crown"; that's not totally unheard of, but it's unusual). I could have gone either way on it, but would have firmed up a position after some further research on the term/name.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Disregard

 – Not a valid RfC, but a WP:NOT#FORUM problem that someone removed the RfC tag from.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rolling Thunder (person) on a "Biographies" 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 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)