Jump to content

User talk:SMcCandlish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user uses PGP for secure communications (click to view this user's key)
This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.
This user helped get "Golden Cue" listed at Did You Know on the main page on June 2, 2010.
This user helped get "Ground billiards" listed at Did You Know on the main page on March 25, 2019.
This user helped get "William A. Spinks" listed at Did You Know on the main page on March 2, 2007.
This user helped get "William Hoskins (inventor)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on February 12, 2019.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "Cornershot" become a good article on July 24, 2006.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "Jasmin Ouschan" become a good article on September 12, 2009.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "William A. Spinks" become a good article on April 22, 2016.
This user is a WikiGnome.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
Email this user
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This editor is a Grandmaster Editor First-Class and is entitled to display the Grandmaster Editor First-Class Ribbon.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is not an admin.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user
This user is a metapedian.
This user is a member of the WikiFun Police.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status: Busy

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Barkeep49 154 0 4 100 14:19, 7 March 2025 4 days, 10 hoursno report
Template-edit requests, etc.

16 template-protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Template:Infobox sports league (request) 2025-01-25 22:16 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Template:Infobox Korean name (request) 2025-02-01 00:33 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Template:Baseballstats (request) 2025-02-03 07:52 Template-protected (log) Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-10-18: "Allowing Protected Template editors"
Template:Infobox officeholder (request) 2025-02-03 08:29 Template-protected (log) Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-10-18: "Allowing Protected Template editors"
Template:Infobox martial artist (request) 2025-02-05 21:13 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Template:Designation (request) 2025-02-08 00:02 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-19: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:Infobox language (request) 2025-02-12 04:16 Template-protected (log) Modified by MusikAnimal on 2021-08-16: "Highly visible template: transclusion count now over 9,000; most recent editors are still able to edit"
Template:Designation/text (request) 2025-02-12 08:18 Template-protected (log) Modified by Samsara on 2017-09-03: "Highly visible template: via RfPP"
Template:Wide image (request) 2025-02-26 15:38 Template-protected (log) Modified by Callanecc on 2014-04-02: "Highly visible template: Over 4500 transclusions; allowing template editors"
User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist (request) 2025-02-26 18:57 Template-protected (log) From User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Blacklist: Modified by AmandaNP on 2016-02-12: "we are going to try letting template editors edit"
User:AmandaNP/UAA/Whitelist (request) 2025-02-27 17:00 Template-protected (log) Modified by AmandaNP on 2020-07-24: "Try Template editor per main blacklist page"
Module:Infobox3cols (request) 2025-02-28 15:11 Template-protected (log) Protected by Mr. Stradivarius on 2015-08-12: "High-risk Lua module"
Template:End date (request) 2025-02-28 15:17 Template-protected (log) Modified by Materialscientist on 2016-11-21: "Highly visible template"
Template:Start date (request) 2025-02-28 15:17 Template-protected (log) Modified by Jo-Jo Eumerus on 2017-03-25: "Allowing template editors on some templates with full protection dating back to pre-TPROT times which aren't too often or too sensitively used."
Template:Infobox school district (request) 2025-03-01 04:00 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Template:WikiProject United States (request) 2025-03-02 20:30 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-17: "allow template editors to modify"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 22:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Lightbreather none (orig. case) 27 February 2025
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 1 March 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
  • Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Most recent poster here: Gerda Arendt (talk)

Mini-toolbox:

Categories for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Other:

As of 2025-03-01 , SMcCandlish is Active.
I'll reply to your message within 24 hours if possible.

WikiStress level
Wikimood
[purge] [edit]
The Signpost
The Signpost

The Signpost
2025-02-27
Volume 21, Issue 3

Please stay in the top 3 segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Old stuff to resolve eventually

[edit]

Cueless billiards

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.
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)[reply]

Crud fits for sure. And if the variant in it is sourceable, I'm sure some military editor will fork it into a separate article eventually. I think at least some variants of bar billiards are played with hands and some bagatelle split-offs probably were, too (Shamos goes into loads of them, but I get them all mixed up, mostly because they have foreign names). And there's bocce billiards, article I've not written yet. Very fun game. Kept my sister and I busy for 3 hours once. Her husband (Air Force doctor) actually plays crud on a regular basis; maybe there's a connection. She beat me several times, so it must be from crud-playing. Hand pool might be its own article eventually. Anyway, I guess it depends upon your "categorization politics". Mine are pretty liberal - I like to put stuff into a logical category as long as there are multiple items for it (there'll be two as soon as you're done with f.b., since we have crud), and especially if there are multiple parent categories (that will be the case here), and especially especially if the split parallels the category structure of another related category branch (I can't think of a parallel here, so this criterion of mine is not a check mark in this case), and so on. A bunch of factors really. I kind of wallow in that stuff. Not sure why I dig the category space so much. Less psychodrama, I guess. >;-) In my entire time here, I can only think of maybe one categorization decision I've made that got nuked at CfD. And I'm a pretty aggressive categorizer, too; I totally overhauled Category:Pinball just for the heck of it and will probably do the same to Category:Darts soon.
PS: I'm not wedded to the "cueless billiards" name idea; it just seemed more concise than "cueless developments from cue sports" or whatever.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "categorization politics". It's not an area that I think about a lot or has ever interested me so it's good there are people like you. If there is to be a category on this, "cueless billiards" seems fine to me. By the way, just posted Yank Adams as an adjunct to the finger billiards article I started.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool; I'd never even heard of him. This one looks like a good DYK; just the fact that there was Finger Billiards World Championship contention is funky enough, probably. You still citing that old version of Shamos? You really oughta get the 1999 version; it can be had from Amazon for cheap and has a bunch of updates. I actually put my old version in the recycle bin as not worth saving. Heh. PS: You seen Stein & Rubino 3rd ed.? I got one for the xmas before the one that just passed, from what was then a really good girlfriend. >;-) It's a-verra, verra nahce. Over 100 new pages, I think (mostly illustrations). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the Blue Book of Pool Cues too for under $200 total. Here it is for $160, plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not IPs they're logging, it's your credit card. You have to give them one in order to get the trial so that they can automatically charge you if you miss the cancellation deadline. Regarding the Blue Book, of all these books, that's the one that get's stale, that is, if you use it for actual quotes, which I do all the time, both for answer to questions and for selling, buying, etc. Yeah I start procrastinating too. I did all that work on Mingaud and now I can't get myself to go back. I also did reams of research on Hurricane Tony Ellin (thugh I found so little; I really felt bad when he died; I met him a few times, seemed like a really great guy), Masako Katsura and others but still haven't moved on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the credit card. I'll have to see if the PayPal plugin has been updated to work with the new Firefox. If so, that's our solution - it generates a new valid card number every time you use it (they always feed from your single PayPal account). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PayPal Plugin ist kaput. Some banks now issue credit card accounts that make use of virtual card numbers, but mine's not one of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a newspaperarchive.com three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad...

[edit]

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)[reply]

Reading stuff from that era, it's also amazing how important billiards (in the three-ball sense) was back then, with sometimes multiple-page stories in newspapers about each turn in a long match, and so on. It's like snooker is today in the UK. PS: I saw that you found evidence of a billiards stage comedy there. I'd never heard of it! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jackpot. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more notes on Crystalate

[edit]
Unresolved
 – New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.
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 - 1991wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&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)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked most of it in. Fences&Windows 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! From what I can tell, entirely different parties held the trademark in different markets. I can't find a link between Crystalate Mfg. Co. Ltd. (mostly records, though billiard balls early on) and the main billiard ball mfr. in the UK, who later came up with "Super Crystalate". I'm not sure the term was even used in the U.S. at all, despite the formulation having been originally patented there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SAL

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Not done yet, last I looked.
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)[reply]

I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Need to fix William A. Spinks, etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.
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)[reply]

Yeah, I did a bunch of archiving yesterday. This page was HUGE. It'll get there again. I'd forgotten MCQ existed. Can you please add it to the DAB hatnote at top of and "See also" at bottom of WP:COPYRIGHT? Its conspicuous absence is precisely why I ened up at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright! Haven't seen your balkline response yet; will go look. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Haw

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation. In the intervening years, we've settled on natural not parenthetic disambiguation, and that standardized breeds get capitalized, but that's about it.
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)[reply]

Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers and editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. Landrace has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and breed not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What is happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether pig Latin is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys – and the naming form that took, i.e. Poitou donkey not Poitou (donkey), I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: [6] or breed or [7]. I think you and I agree that the Palomino horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the Landrace article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split Natural breed out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a traditional breed, though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to landrace now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it's on my to-do list. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians).
The good thing about breeds wrt Wikipedia is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Wikipedia to do so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reluctant to use landrace much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before wikipedia either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between selective breeding and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like Kiger Mustang, which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, Chiweenies? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of corn growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that MRSA is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through mostly natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the St Johns water dog and Maine Coon cat are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant sentence?

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Work to integrate WP:NCFLORA and WP:NCFAUNA stuff into MOS:ORGANISMS not completed yet? Seems to be mostly done, other than fixing up the breeds section, after that capitalization RfC a while back.
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)[reply]

  1. I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely different groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
  2. I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there[8], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
  2. I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
  2. Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self on WP:WikiProject English language

[edit]
Unresolved
 – I think I did MOST of this already ...
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)[reply]

Excellent mini-tutorial

[edit]
Unresolved
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)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Thanks. I need to copy that into an essay page. As far as I know, the concepts are not clearly covered in any of those places, nor clearly enough even at Help:CS1 (which is dense and overlong as it is). The e-book matters bear some researching. I'm very curious whether particular formats (Nook, etc.) paginate consistently between viewers. For Web-accessible ones, I would think that the page numbering that appears in the Web app is good enough if it's consistent (e.g., between a PC and a smart phone) when the reader clicks the URL in the citation. I suppose one could also use |at= to provide details if the "page" has to be explained in some way. I try to rely on better-than-page-number locations when possible, e.g. specific entries in dictionaries and other works with multiple entries per page (numbered sections in manuals, etc.), but for some e-books this isn't possible – some are just continuous texts. One could probably use something like |at=in the paragraph beginning "The supersegemental chalcolithic metastasis is ..." about 40% into the document, in a pinch. I guess we do need to figure this stuff out since such sources are increasingly common.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (about figuring out how to reference e-books), though I suspect existing (non-WP) citation styles have addressed this already (no need to re-invent the wheel). This is a slightly different case, though. It is a digitisation of an existing (physical) book that has no page numbers. If I had the book in front of me (actually, it was only published as a single copy, so it is not a 'publication' in that traditional sense of many copies being produced), the problem with page numbers would still exist. I wonder if the 'digital viewer' should be thought of as a 'via' thingy? In the same way that (technically) Google Books and archive.org digital copies of old books are just re-transmitting, and re-distributing the material (is wikisource also a 'via' sort of thing?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Ah, I see. I guess I would treat it as a |via=, and same with WikiSource, which in this respect is essentially like Google Books or Project Gutenberg. I think your conundrum has come up various times with arXiv papers, that have not been paginated visibly except in later publication (behind a journal paywall and not examined). Back to the broader matter: Some want to treat WikiSource and even Gutenberg as republishers, but I think that's giving them undue editorial credit and splitting too fine a hair. Was thinking on the general unpaginated and mis-paginated e-sources matter while on the train, and came to the conclusion that for a short, unpaginated work with no subsections, one might give something like |at=in paragraph 23, and for a much longer one use the |at=in the paragraph beginning "..." trick. A straight up |pages=82–83 would work for an e-book with hard-coded meta-data pagination that is consistent between apps/platforms and no visual pagination. On the other hand, use the visual pagination in an e-book that has it, even if it doesn't match the e-book format's digital pagination, since the pagination in the visual content would match that of a paper copy; one might include a note that the pagination is that visible in the content if it conflicts with what the e-book reader says (this comes up a lot with PDFs, for one thing - I have many that include cover scans, and the PDF viewers treat that as p. 1, then other front matter as p. 2, etc., with the content's p. 1 being something like PDF p. 7).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDMOS

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Go fix the WP:FOO shortcuts to MOS:FOO ones, to match practice at other MoS pages. This only applies to the MoS section there; like WP:SAL, part of that page is also a content guideline that should not have MOS: shortcuts.
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)[reply]

Thanks. I don't remember what it was, but maybe it'll come back to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I remember.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh...potential WikiGnoming activity...

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Do some of this when I'm bored?
Extended content

@SMcCandlish:

I stumbled upon 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,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I would've hoped some bot fixed that kind of stuff. I'll consider it, but it's a lot of work for low benefit (the page names may be wrong, but the redirs still get there), and it's been my experience that a lot of editnotices (especially in mainspace) are PoV-pushing crap that needs to be deleted anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pass for the nonce, Dmehus. Working on some other project (more fun than WP is sometimes). I'll let it sit here with {{Unresolved}} on it, in case I get inspired to work on it some, but it might be a long time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Cquote stuff ...

Now this

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Breed disambiguation again ...
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)[reply]

@Montanabw: Argh. Well, this is easy to fix with a request to mass-revert undiscussed moves, at the subsection for that at WP:RMTR. Some admin will just fix it all in one swoop. While I have the PageMover bit, and could do it myself as a technical possibility, I would run afoul of WP:INVOLVED in doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Did this get fixed yet? If not, I can look into it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PGP

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Gotta put my geek hat on and fix this.

FYI, it looks like your key has expired. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aiee! Thanks, I'll have to generate a new one when I have time to mess around with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German article on houndstooth, Border tartan, and related patterns

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Considering ...

de:Rapport (Textil) is an interesting 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)[reply]

Post-holidays note to self

[edit]
Unresolved
 – I need to come up with a better to-do list kind of thing on here, and actually use it instead of letting it turn moribund.
Extended content

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)[reply]





Current threads

[edit]

Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about

[edit]

Hey Mac, I thought you might want to be aware of this discussion (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Wikipedia's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate sub judice reasons).

While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? SnowRise let's rap 00:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. That sounds really dreadful. This seems really problematic on multiple levels. I hope the disappeared article is available through some archival service (what with Wayback being under concerted attack for so long now). But the privacy matter seems more important here. I've been quietly arguing for some time that WMF has to stop blockading VPNs, for reasons like this. If you don't have PII to divulge, then governments don't try to twist your arm in the first place. I have the US election shitshow in my face at the moment, but maybe can look into this tomorrow. I don't have a lot of reach any longer, but my FB and LinkedIn pages probably hit the eyes of some who do on such matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been coming to similar conclusions about the VPN issue of late, although I confess that the potential for abuse by vandals is a difficult concern to ignore at the same time. In any event, I agree that the PII issues is the much more serious and pressing of the issues, even if neither is exactly a trivial matter. And yes, I appreciate the timing could not be worse, but do consider looking into the matter further if time allows--few people here are more articulate than you, once you've made your mind up on how you feel about an issue. SnowRise let's rap 04:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Life got away from me, and I'll try to look into this shortly, though maybe some deadline has been passed already. PS: On VPNs, I don't mean we should permit them across-the-board, but just for logged-in users with accounts past some threshold (of the sort we impose for various other things; maybe autoconfirmed, though something more stringent could also be used). It just makes zero sense that I can be logged in as me, a user with 19 years experience here, and cannot edit beyond my userspace if using a VPN (which is more and more an automatic thing one has to affirmatively turn off in various browsers these days).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at the AT discussion

[edit]

I can assure you I have no emotional attachment to the AT policy and I'd ask that you strike your comments suggesting that I'm engaging in bent-out-of-shape ranting, etc. Clearly I misunderstood what you were saying regarding the "over-ride" issue; you could have just clarified your point instead of calling me hysterical. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Done, in the interests of peace. Though I just did a direct revision instead of a strike-through.

It would be nice if, for your part, you actually addressed the substance of the argument I made instead of repeatedly just criticizing perceived tone and imaginary implications (of my wording or Cinderella's), since the actually operable implications in the context are quite limited, as has been explained in some detail.

That said, the discussion/proposal is a dead stick. Cinderella's wording choices set off so many people that the snowball is probably irreversible. This should be re-addressed some other time (perhaps after a customary 6-18 months) with more careful wording and a more clearly articulated argument, because the problem identified is a real one and it is not going to magically go away. My sectional merge proposal would obviate it, but no one's going to notice and support it because they're running around alarmed by "supersede" and "override". It might not be "hysterical" but it's not responsive to the issue in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision is hardly better. You've still left in the stuff about argument to emotion and called me blustery. And, now you're assuming that I'm angry at you as well. I can once again assure you that I'm not angry. Stop speculating on my emotional state or my motivations. It's not productive. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I revised for tone because the tone was not constructive. As for the rest: no one likes being criticized, but something that basically boils down to "stop criticizing" isn't a request I'm going to obey. I stand by my criticisms. Your and other "no" !votes in that proceeding are not in any way responsive to the substance of the proposal but only emotively over-reacting to wording used by the proponent and to imaginary not plausible repercussions. As my old friend John Perry Barlow put it in regard to such "terriblizing" (to paraphrase here; I don't have the article he wrote about this right in front of me): Objecting to something on the basis of the possible outcomes instead of the probable one is fallacious. In the imagination, there are no limits to the possible, but the outcome is extremely unlikely to be in the extreme range of it. As for "angry", your tone toward me there and here is clearly angry (displeased, antagonistic, combative, complaining, unhappy, dwelling on your hurt feelings instead of on the substance, however one wants to put it). It requires no mind-reading to observe this. You don't get to duck and dodge the implications of what you write by disclaiming that they convey what they clearly convey, any more than I do. I've gone the extra mile to edit my tone in response to you, but you have not met me half way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user scripts

[edit]

might benefit more users if they were also listed at Wikipedia:User scripts/List. That's the go-to place where I get all my scripts from... Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 05:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I think they still need a bit more tweaking (even aside from one lacking the vertical formatting feature entirely). It's stuff I worked on obsessively for about a month straight, but have been doing other stuff since then. Takes a while to get back into such things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal) 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 00:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide 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 22:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabiha Gökçen 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 10:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC 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 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

[edit]
Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December thanks

[edit]
story · music · places

Thank you today for improving article quality in December! - Today is a woman poet's centenary. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]
Disregard
 – Non-neutral pseudo-RfC; advice given to poster of it on how to do it properly
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tina Turner 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 03:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]
 Endorsed

A redirect or redirects you have created 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 December 27 § "Musican" Redirects until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're my MOS maven...

[edit]

I cannot believe that we seriously intend for this style of number separation to be used - here. Am I utterly off base? Ealdgyth (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: [9].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gram capitalisation (eponym exceptionalism)

[edit]

You've probably had your fill of this, so forgive me if so.

My background
I'm a long-time IP editor of WP with an interest in style, grammar & punctuation, who has regularly been unfairly thwacked with actions from admins or logged in editors — usually as collateral damage in an IP-range block, but occasionally through some other tiresome thing, such as edit reversion.... Some of those admins have seemed pretty trigger-happy to implement blocks, without feeling any compunction when I've occasionally pointed out that some of those specific instances were contrary to the official WP guidelines (and, furthermore, no penalty to such admins...). Anyway, enough of my ranting... Just that the contrast in treatment is 'interesting'.

I was wondering why the styling at Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-negative bacteria never got resolved. If indeed (as I think you made a fair case) one or a handful of editors were standing against the MOS, then why was there no admin action against those editors for blocking/reverting changes consistent with the MOS to retain a version at odds with the MOS?

I notice that the explicit guidance on eponyms in the MOS has stood for the past several years, but those two articles remain as inconsistent as ever.

I don't think this necessarily has to be your burden to carry, but why are some admins not resolving this?

—DIV (202.7.208.27 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

As a sometimes McCandlish lurker, per your concerns about IP editing, may I point out that User:DIV is open if you want it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a pretty cool username, too. Not many three-letter ones available that are pronounceable. As an HTML-element reference, it would imply that you're full of content. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It never got resolved because most of us have lives and run out of time and patience to deal with it when there is a camp of editors who will fight ceaselessly to keep some WP:SSF-based weird stylistic divergence from our style manual, because the variant suits their off-site writing habits that pertain to some other domain. One of these cases is the preference on the part of the American Medical Association's style guide to lowercase a proper-name-bearing term any time it is used as (or as part of) a modifier instead of as a noun phrase. This is weird, intentionally inconsistent, and downright confusing. It doesn't match the writing style of any other group of English-language users in the entire world. But if editors who are fans of this practice are a thick majority of the editors who will respond to any attempt to normalize the style to reader expectations at a particular subject, then progress will tend to stonewall. Often the only way to break through such a deadlock is an RfC at some venue like WT:MOS or even WP:VPPOL. Personally, I have little patience for this stuff any longer, because there are more important things to do. They always turn into WP:DRAMA festivals.

That said, fixing "gram-negative" to "Gram-negative" throughout all of our material would be good to do, because almost everyone who encounters this term and is not already a medicine or biology professional is going believe that it has something to do with the gram[e] unit, when it is really an eponym based on the surname Gram. Other terms lowercased for the same dubious reason, e.g. "parkinsonian", are less problematic than this case because they lack such obvious and confusing ambiguity. To put it another way, if the AMA's next style book edition demands to start spelling "CAT scan" and "PET scan" as "cat scan" and "pet scan", WP would ignore them as ridiculous and "reader-hateful". We should already have come to that same conclusion with regard to "gram-positive/negative" (and having come to that conclusion, then step-wise also concluded to avoid "parkinsonian" and the like as a consistency matter).

On your admins side question: it's virtually unheard of for admins to get involved in MoS-related disputes in a block-wielding manner, because they are guidelines not policies, and they have a lot of "real work" to do, e.g. against vandalism and spam and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity 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 22:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
Disregard
 – RfC withdrawn as too unclear, before I got to it.
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson 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 02:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ronald Reagan 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 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel 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 12:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

@SMcCandlish, hello … this is Augnablik, a Wikipedia editor for the past 2.5 years. I'm writing because you were recommended as someone I might turn to for answers to questions about the more convoluted elements of MOS. Example: right now I'm in somewhat of a fog trying to decide the best way to disambiguate the subject of an article.

I wish Wikipedia still offered a similar one-on-one feature called Editor Assistance that used to be available, as I recently discovered, only to find it was discontinued. In its absence, would you be willing to pick up on this and occasional other such questions for me?

Augnablik (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Sure, happy to help. I probably have one of the better mental-map understandings of most of MoS and how it interrelates in various sections, and interacts with other guidelines and policies. If I don't get back to you speedily, it's not because I'm ignoring you, just off doing something else for a while. Anyway, keep in mind that I'm just one editor; while I've been one of MoS's shepherds for 15+ years, there can be interpretational disagreements about it. If something I say seems wrongheaded, it might actually be wrongheaded, with the question better asked at WT:MOS or on the talk-page of one of the more specific MoS sub-guidelines (e.g. WT:MOSCAPS for case questions, WT:MOSNUM for number and date ones, WT:DAB for disambiguation ones, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a quick reply, @SMcCandlish. I look forward to discussions with not just a highly recommended MOS expert but also someone whose User page indicates a shared love and ownership of cats (but don't they own us?) as well as ability in versions of the English language for which I didn't even know User boxes were available. And since you're "one of MOS's shepherds"— forgive me for this — I won't need to be sheepish about asking you some of the intricate questions I may come up with.
Here is my most immediate need. I'm working on the existing article for Ramendra Kumar, a noted Indian children's author — that is, what's left of it after having been pretty much blown to bits. I recently discovered another Indian by the same name, who also turned out to have a Wiki article: Ramendra Kumar (politician). Today I found two more Indian politicians by the name of Ramendra Kumar but an additional surname, all with at least something in a Wiki article (Ramendra Kumar Yadav and Ramendra Kumar Podder).
— I know that disambiguation should be created for not just the Ramendra Kumar whose article I'm working on but also the other three.
— I think it would also might be helpful to point out that the first name "Ramendra" should not be confused with Rajendra or Ravendra, as there are other notable Indians who also have those first names along with Kumar as a surname.
When I thought there was only one other person by the same name, I was going to attempt a disambiguation and ask the yet-unidentified MOS expert if what I'd come up with seemed okay. But now that I know there are so many others with the same or similar names, I think I'd better just throw up my hands and turn to the expert. Augnablik (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would not involve either Ramendra Kumar Yadav and Ramendra Kumar Podder as disambiguation page entries for the name "Ramendra Kumar" (much less put disambiguation hatnotes on them) except for one who is also referred to in reliable sources as "Ramendra Kumar" alone. The unfamiliarity of these names to the average English speaker (outside the Indian subcontinent) doesn't make any difference. If we have Michael Jackson (disambiguation), we would not add someone named "Michael Jackson MacTavish" or "Michael Jackson Chen-Garcia" to it, unless RS indicated they were referred to often enough without "MacTavish" or "Chen-Garcia". It's reasonable at a disambiguation page's "See also" section to but something like "All pages with titles containing Ramendra Kumar" (see the Jackson page for example). That section would also be a good place for "* Rajendra Kumar" and "* Ravendra Kumar" (or apparently not the last one yet, since it's still a red link, so would serve no navigational purpose on a disambig. page). There's no need to "point out" to readers, in a reader-addressing manner, that such names also exit and might be what they're looking for; a diambig. page's see-also section exists for not having to do that in a pedantic way, but just by providing links. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. And now a few more related disambiguation questions ...
  • I'm thinking to remove the sentence currently serving as the lead in the Ramendra Kumar author article and instead place it within parentheses, like what the article does for the Indian politician of the same name: (author).
  • When the above is done, then: — Underneath the article title for RK the author, I write For Ramendra Kumar the Indian politician, see Ramendra Kumar (politician). But how do I indent that line, as it appears on disambiguated pages? — Underneath the article title for RK the Indian politician, I write For Ramendra Kumar the Indian author, see Ramendra Kumar (author).
  • As for the "See also" section idea you gave, citing the Michael Jackson article, when I went there I saw what seemed a completely unrelated list of dancers of all time! In any event, your comment that we don't have to point out to readers that similar names to the one in the title also exist made me decide not to include a See also section for RK the author. I guess I'd been assuming that sort of thing was an editor's duty.
Augnablik (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither should be using parenthetical descriptions in their lead sentences; that's a style for article title disambiguation. If the author isn't markedly more notable than the politician, he should move to Ramendra Kumar (author) (and that should exist as a WP:Redirect anyway, otherwise). For a two-person disambiguation, WP:Hatnotes are sufficient as a minimum, but it doesn't hurt for there to be a Ramendra Kumar disambiguation page (with Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) also redirecting to that), since we have at least two "See also" ideas (maybe three, if the presently red-linked Ravendra Kumar also ends up with an article), in addition to two proper entries. The navigation hatnotes at the top of the articles would be done with Template:For, something like {{for|the member of Indian Parliament|Ramendra Kumar (politian)}} and {{for|the children's book writer|Ramendra Kumar (author)}}, here written to avoid annoyingly repeating the words "politician" and "author", though some editors wouldn't care and would do that anyway. This will put the indented navigational hatnotes at the point the template is used in the article's source code, which should be immediately under any {{Short description}} template (the first on the page) and before other templates like cleanup notices, or {{Use Indian English|date=January 2025}} and {{Use dmy dates|cs1-dates=ll|date=January 2025}}, which would also be appropriate for this article, and infoboxes, which probably would also be appropriate. You can learn a lot about how to use (and order) such templates by looking at the code of existing articles, some of which use more complicated hatnotes for cases of multiple disambiguations. The politician article should probably have {{Infobox politician}}. The author article is already using {{Infobox author}}, but has an {{EngvarB}} template that should be replaced with {{Use Indian English}}; the politician article lacks such an English-dialect template entirely. I improved the author's lead sentence a little, but left the rest for you to do as practice, though I could also just do it since it's easy for me.

Regarding Michael Jackson (disambiguation) – it's fairly likely that a disambig. page for a name both common and prominent will attract some entries that should be removed as inappropriate; I didn't mean to suggest it as a perfect model, but simply as an example of not adding [A] [B] [C] cases to [A] [B] (disambiguation) pages. I.e., if it were normal to do that, then any page of that sort would already have numerous such entries, but they do not. Human-name disambiguation pages that treat a name in isolation might do that, if the name is uncommon enough that the list is not excessively long. E.g. McCandlish has an an entry for someone using it as a given name. But we might not do this at a very popular name, for length reasons. Jackson is doing it, in sections, but in other cases we have a separate given-name disambiguation or list page, e.g. List of people with given name Wilson (I'm not sure by what criteria this would be at "List of people with given name Foo" instead of "Foo (given name)", and the one will usually redirect to the other regardless. The editors at WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy probably have an answer for this question (or perhaps what to do with such quasi-articles is in some kind of disputed state; I would not be surprised).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🙄 @SMcCandlish, oh yikes, what have I gotten myself into? This is even deeper yogurt than I thought. Augnablik (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The simple approach to any case like this is to just copy what has been done already for a parallel case. "Michael Jackson" isn't even a bad example. This is name with an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that will be at that name without disambiguation; 99% of readers will be expecting the singer. A disambiguation page lists as * list items all the articles that match the name as their title (aside from disambiguation parentheticals tacked on), as well as anyone with an alternative (e.g. former) name that also matches the name. Any partial matches (e.g. as given/middle names, or as references e.g. "List of studio albums by Michael Jackson") or easily confused similar names, go in "See also" one way or another (using a search function if there might be a lot of them, but probably just as individual entries in that section is one or only a few). For the cases that do directly match, disambiguation hatnotes go atop the article. {{For}} is useful when there are very few, but other Category:Disambiguation templates might be used to produce different output in other cases, e.g. {{About|the|technologist}} will generate:
This page is about the technologist. For other uses, see SMcCandlish (disambiguation).
It automatically picks up the base name of the page unless told to do otherwise. (That it automatically appends " (disambiguation)" is why a redirect like Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) should exist and point to Ramendra Kumar after it becomes the disambiguation page (which likely should happen because neither the writer nor the parliamentarian seem like PRIMARYTOPIC candidates to be at the base name without any disambiguating parenthetical).

Learning to edit Wikipedia source code is a lot like learning a programming/scripting language: there are lots of technical nit-picks, but they make sense as a whole after they're absorbed; they quickly become second nature. PS: I fixed the broken link in my previous response to WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can empathize with you, @SMcCandlish, in your role of senior Wiki style expert at hearing an editor squawk under the onslaught of so many directives (even though they were requested!). As a teacher and trainer in real life — what's left of it l, that is,after Wikipedia has eaten up more and more hours of my day — I understand the value of living through a bit of pain at the prospect of all the overwhelming new stuff finally getting absorbed.
I'll stay with it, but it's definitely more of a learning curve than I expected. Augnablik (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My general advice for everyone is to just write content (in a dry, encyclopedic tone, and sticking to reliably sourced facts not supposition), follow the WP:BLP policy with regard to living people, and obey WP:COPYRIGHT (i.e., don't plagiarize material from other sources). As long as you do that then your contributions should be a net positive; others will point out any formatting or other mistakes and probably clean up after them. You'll gradually absorb the norms and details as you go along. Trying to learn a complex system like this without immersion in it is like trying to learn a foreign language from a book and a video. And if, for any question, you do what a preponderance of well-written conceptually similar articles are already doing, you'll rarely go wrong. E.g., if you wonder something like "Would it be appropriate for the author article to inline some audiovisual material, like him giving a speech at a book signing?", look at other other author articles and you'll see quickly that the answer is "no". A more prosaic example would be "Should award names be in italics or some other special markup?" If you look at the biographies of major figures with numerous awards, like a celebrated actor, a highly decorated soldier, and a champion athlete, you'll see immediately that the answer is "no italics or other special markup, beyond capitalizing the proper name of the award".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following the guidelines in the 1st sentence of your above message, and in the Visual editor, no problem. Working on curly bracketed code in the Source editor rather than the Visual editor, I'd prefer 2 root canals at the same time just to avoid. Augnablik (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should work out fine. Lots of editors use the VE, and get more comfortable with tweaking things in the source editor over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A note about a misplaced copy-paste, and the comedy of misunderstanding and banter that ensued

Above, you wrote the following (nowikified here, to illustrate the point):

{{tlx|About|the|singer}} wil generate: {{About|the technologist}}

Pretty sure that was some kind of copy-paste glitch; just thought I'd mention it so as not to lead Augnablik astray. If it was intended, please enlighten! Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was and error (of editing only 1 of 2 copies after pasting). Fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot, I couldn't help noticing that in your request to @SMcCandlish to look into a possible copy-paste error you'd somehow come across in a message he'd sent me, you'd contacted him with concern "so as not to lead Augnablik astray."
Well, I just couldn't help commenting in turn that aside from what he agreed had been a copy-paste error, he seems pretty harmless to me and indeed quite friendly. ☺️ Augnablik (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A typo/glitch/copy-buffer issue can happen to anyone, right? Leading someone astray does not apply imply malice, only an act of unintended obfuscation that he may not have been aware of, and was happy to fix so as not to confuse you; so the comment served its purpose. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Errrkk … my little attempt at humor backfired. I thought the ☺️ emoji would be a giveaway about the intention.
As SMcC's ancestry is from the UK, wellspring of dry humor that it is, perhaps at least he "got it." Hope so, but apologies and remorse for any distress caused to either of you. It was totally unintentional. Augnablik (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just fyi, I did misread you, and even the emoji, also, which I read as a complicity-emoji, meaning roughly: "This is really only a minor gaffe on your part and not a big deal, so I'm not mad at you and don't worry but I didn't want SMcC to feel stung." No distress (didn't even realize that was a possibility) so all is well. Carry on! Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I got both Mathglot's intended version of "lead astray", and Augnablik's playfulness in return banter. It also funny that the "wil" typo remained throughout all of this, as if invisible. (Since fixed in the original, because I obsess like that.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be outdone in typos-slash-gaffes, or obssessiveness: just noticed my howler of apply instead of imply above—what was I smoking? Now redacted. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wikentanyl will be the death of us all!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik IIRC, Editor Assistance was closed since there was no difference in how it worked in practice compared to Help desk/Teahouse. But, it was where I had one of my funniest WP-discussions ever, Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_129#Saint_Jean-Baptiste_(Léonard_de_Vinci)_--wikipédia_française. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Assistance might not have worked differently in practice compared to the Help Desk or the Teahouse, but the value I see in an EA-focused place is that it would have been extremely helpful to focus just on MOS-related issues rather than a whole smorgasbord. And the archives for those issues could, over time, have become of special interest to editors wanting to pore over past MOS advice.
As for your interchange with Monsieur Léonard, ooh-la-la! Augnablik (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall EA being MoS-focused. To the extent an individual "advisor" like me isn't helpful to you or responsive quickly enough, MoS's own talk pages are generally helpful (except the more obscure drill-down ones, which may have few watcherlisters). So anyway, what's this burning disambiguation-related style question?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just posted, SMcC.
I thought I'd reply to GGS first, a much easier message ... and I also miscalculated your California time, thinking you'd be asleep and wouldn't see what I'd write for quite a few more hours. Augnablik (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Style message thread (above)

[edit]

Hi, SMcC ...

  • Is it impossible to modify an article title? I can’t seem to change Ramendra Kumar to Ramendra Kumar (author), though I tried. (I’m assuming this was what you wanted done, even though I wasn’t quite sure from your comment: “If the author isn't markedly more notable than the politician, he should move to Ramendra Kumar (author).” (Your reply to me of January 6)
  • Following your above comment, you added: “(and that should exist as a WP:Redirect anyway, otherwise).” As I’ve never been involved with redirects, do I understand the procedure correctly, to mean that this entails creating a separate page on which both Ramendra Kumars are mentioned by using the Template:For? I understand the concept of redirects but I find the “how-to’s” very confusing. One difficulty I see for editors trying to “learn about how to use (and order) such templates by looking at the code of existing articles” is that we have little idea where to begin, other than (as we see when we go to WP:REDIRECT), Pelé. Or, if we’re lucky enough to have an expert like you to ask, and we get a suggestion to look at what was done for someone such as Michael Jackson. But ideally, I see need for a tutorial providing a bunch of examples to work on, each representing a different editorial situation, with feedback for our answers.
  • I succeeded in changing the infobox language from EngvarB to use Indian English, as you suggested. But frankly I think if it really required changing, it would have been fine with the British English language, as Indian and British are much the same. At any rate, this exercise was very helpful because it was my first time using an infobox, and it was fairly painless although I did have to re-read the information a number of times to really absorb it.

Augnablik (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to Ramendra Kumar (author). It's possible you lack the ability to do page moves until after a certain amount of time as an editor. The rules about which permissions are available when isn't something I've been keeping track of. Also created the disambiguation page over the redirect at Ramendra Kumar, and redirected Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) to that. And put hatnotes atop each of the articles (just pointing to each other; these would change to pointers to the disambiguation page if a third notable Ramendra Kumar comes up). If you click Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) it will redirect you to the real disambiguation page at Ramendra Kumar. There, you'll see a small "Redirected from Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)" note at the top; if you click that, you go to a version of "Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)" that doesn't auto-redirect you right back to "Ramendra Kumar". If you edit that view of "Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)", you can see how a redirect is built. This is covered more documentarily at WP:Redirect and Help:Redirect. PS: As for "Indian and British [English] are much the same": That's especially true in an encyclopedic register (without colloquialisms), and is true of all Commonwealth English dialects aside from Canadian, which is why I've advocated merging them all so we have nothing left but "Use Commonwealth English", "Use American English", and "Use Canadian English" (the last of these being a hybrid of the first two). But there's too much nationalistic sentiment for this to happen. Everyone wants their silly "Use Jamaican English", etc., templates, even for dialects that do not exist at all in a formal register (speakers of Jamaican, Tanzanian, etc. English use British English at an encyclopedic formality level). Win some, lose some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A thousand thank-you's for doing all you mentioned above, SMcCandlish. What a wonderful difference it makes to the articles for both Ramendra Kumars. Seeing what you did definitely makes a big difference in my ability to understand redirects and disambiguation and such. If Wikipedia ever gets to the point I'm hoping some day, with great tutorials for everything editors need to understand along the road that offer not just information but also examples and guided practice for editors, your work on the Kumar kerfuffle would be a terrific entry.
To be honest, I think if I'd had to spend much more time trying to sort it out much further, I'd be a good candidate for a long Wiki vacation right about now.
Interesting to find out that making a change to a title is a page move. I hadn't realized. By the way, just as clarification about editor level, I'm an extended confirmed user with 1,100+ editing points. So apparently we can't yet be trusted doing page moves. Probably for good reason. At this point in my Wiki career, I feel like a new driver who's getting ever more comfortable on the road, but not when it goes up a steep hill with lots of bends and the road begins to narrow and rain begins to fall and ... Augnablik (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish there were better tutorial materials. I've thought of making some, but it's time consuming, and I'm not very photogenic or a good speaker for doing video presentations; someone else would be better for that. I might do some "crash course" write-ups though. I have had several in mind. Most of my WP essay work has been about nitty-gritty subjects of policy and guideline interpretation, and written for old hands. It would be an interesting change of pace to do some "So, you're new around here? Let me help you out" material. Page moves: Yes, a move and rename are the same thing. As for ability to do moves, if you are EC then you probably can already do it, it just might be buried in some menu or other. I use the crusty old "Vector Legacy (2010)" theme, and have customized it to hell and back with user CSS and JS scripts, so I couldn't tell you where the move/rename option is by default these days. Help:How to move a page and/or Wikipedia:Moving a page may have the info about that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot to suggest that instead of calling Ramendra Kumar the author a writer of children's and YA books, you spell out that acronym. Not everyone will know what it refers to. Augnablik (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by your Talk page photo, I think you're "selling yourself short."
As for being an engaging speaker — on which you may also be selling yourself short — one way you could do it would be to be interviewed by another editor about the decisions and steps to take in procedures that you feel most comfortable talking about. The other editor could be (1) someone who might serve as the narrator of a whole series of "how-to's" or (2) someone acting in the role of a bewildered newish editor asking the seasoned editor for guidance. (No, I'm not volunteering! 😅) Augnablik (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should do that, but it's not really my kind of project, and I have too many projects as it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Augnablik I've merged these two Kumar threads.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you repositioned the later one so it directly follows the earlier one, I assume ... I think I do recall the later one had been further down.
To do that, did you just go to the Source code and move the later one up? Augnablik (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, edited the entire page, to get at all the sections at once, moved this one up, and changed it from == level-2 heading to === level-3 subheading. I would think in VisualEditor, you'd copy-paste the section, then select its heading and change it from H2 to H3 level. But I haven't used VE in years, so I'm not sure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its time for you to put on your MOS hat again...

[edit]

I know that we don't do this (putting categories in the middle of article text), but I have no idea where we have a proscription against it, any clue where it might be? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When is that hat ever off? Heh. We don't seem to have a rule against using links this way. If we did, I would expect to find it at MOS:LINK#Links to Wikipedia's categories or in MOS:LAYOUT somewhere. In this case, the custom hatnote is falsely claiming these are articles, so is inappropriate (at least in the present form) for that reason alone. It's not uncommon for category links to appear in "See also", and they are also used as direct links in this way in many navigation templates, so they are not per se forbidden. But they do seem to be more appropriate as "See also" entries. If kept as a mid-article hatnote, it should at least be clarified to stop claiming it is providing links to main articles on Henry I's children and mistresses, and it also should not be piping these links to disguise the fact that they are categories and hide what the names of the categories actually are. The MOS:LINK section above doesn't suggest doing anything like this with with category links, and MOS:SUBMARINE says more directly not to make links confusing in a "reader-hateful" manner.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can't have such a rule,[citation needed] or else we will have to have a carve-out for templates which put articles into categories. (Hopefully that template is clever enough not to categorize this page in Category:All articles with unsourced statements due to the namespace; we shall soon see.) Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice

[edit]
 Done

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2018 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more style questions about an article subject

[edit]

@SMcCandlish, another interesting new question for you:

I'm doing some editing on the article for Joseph Bharat Cornell, recognized as one of the world's 100 leading nature educators. He has written many books. For many years he published under just his birth name, "Joseph Cornell." Bharat is a spiritual name given to him in the spiritual community to which he belongs, and he began publishing books with all three names only in later years.

Thinking the question of how to handle this duality in Cornell's publication names might be somewhat similar to what the MOS had to say about handling names of women authors if they marry and change the name under which they publish, I went to the MOS and looked up name information but didn't find exactly what I think I need to know about handling this situation.

Advice? Augnablik (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you think you need to know about handling this situation? This isn't like a marriage-related name change, or the MoS material about that would also include cases like this. If this person is most commonly known in present-day sources as "Joseph Bharat Cornell", then that's what our article title should be at (WP:COMMONNAME). If it's not (and the one semi-independent source cited thus far isn't using it) then we'd go with the shorter "Joseph Cornell", as the actual COMMONNAME and per WP:CONCISE; we only use additional names (middle, nick, adoptive, etc.) when leaving it out will confuse people as to who the subject is because the subject usually has that additional name (e.g. Sarah Jessica Parker is nearly never referred to as just "Sarah Parker", so readers will not be looking for her under that name or nor expect her to be at any article by that title). Wikipedia article titles are not about making self-marketers happy but about helping readers find and be certain they have found the right article. At any rate, it appears very likely to me that this article will be soon deleted for failing WP:Notability. There is no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, only an interview (which does not count) and self-published materials (which don't count; Crystal Clarity Publishers and Dawn Publications are clearly his own labels, not independent and reputable publishers). If Cornell really has been awarded some kind of "world's 100 leading nature educators" label by some independent organization, then that would be worth including, with a source citations, as evidence of notability to help save the article (though that one item by itself may not be enough). PS: His yoga teacher should not be referred to as "Swami" anything; that's an honorific (non-neutral title that should not be used in Wikipedia's own voice. Note that his article is at Kriyananda not "Swami Kriyananda". And he is at that title, instead of something like James D. Walters, because most sources refer to him by (or primarily by) the name Kriyananda, not his birth name. "Kriyanada gets an Indian name" does not automatically equate to "Cornell also gets an Indian name", since they are not parallel cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the tips here. I can see why the article might be a candidate for deletion without notability buttressing. There is quite a bit available beyond Dawn Publications and Crystal Clarity (which do also publish several other authors, especially Crystal Clarity) and I'm surprised it wasn't used by the editor(s) who worked on the article.
Although I have a COI with the article, I'll add a few such citations as soon as possible to deter deletion. Meanwhile, I hope other editors will take over the article, as Cornell is definitely notable in his field. It would be a particularly interesting one for new editors with an interest in nature and nature education.
As for the addition of the spiritual name, I think it would probably be best — all things considered in what you point out here — to simply say that he got "Bharat" as a spiritual name without pointing to any one person who gave it to him.

Augnablik (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cornell already is the title of someone else's article, so Joseph Bharat Cornell works pretty well as a disambiguation. If his article is kept but "Joseph Bharat Cornell" doesn't turn out to be the common name, then it would be disambiguated as something like Joseph Cornell (educator), which should exist as a redirect anyway, especially since he didn't start adding the "Bharat" until later, as you say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a great catch (the existence of the other Joseph Cornell) — thanks. I hadn't noticed the other fellow's existence till fairly recently, let alone thought to check on whether there might be others with the same name.
Joseph Bharat Cornell is such a recent name change for the nature educator that I wonder if he did himself any favors by publishing under it. Perhaps he too found the other one. But I'm sure it will confuse a number of people who know him under his original name. Augnablik (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote at the top of Joseph Cornell should resolve any such confusion. If there turn out to be three+ notable Joseph Cornells, then we should have Joseph Cornell (disambiguation) and use that as that hatnote target instead. With regard to the educator, I'd be more concerned about establishing that he passes WP:Notability and doesn't get deleted. Adding a source about his "top 100" award would be a good start, as well as any non-interview source material about him in works he didn't publish himself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have not created Joseph Cornell (disambiguation) yet, because the survivability of the Joseph Bharat Cornell article is in doubt, and if it's deleted, then the disambig. page would have only one entry and thus also have to be deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some information to the Joseph Bharat Cornell article that I think will help end any concerns about his notability and keep him in Wikipedia. Much more will be added over time, hopefully more references beyond his organizational website and the interview I found in what appears a good strong educational journal.
Now, to follow up on your last message above ...
— I don't see the hatnote to which you refer in your 1st paragraph.
— I can't find a third Joseph Cornell, which in your message you seemed to believe necessary for a disambiguation page. Is there some reason that disambiguation can't be done with only two Joseph Cornells (even though you kindly did create such a page for the two Ramendra Kumars? And because the article for the Joseph Cornell the nature educator is entitled Joseph Bharat Cornell, he still needs to be differentiated from the Joseph Cornell who was an artist and sculptor because the nature educator is so widely known as only Joseph Cornell. Augnablik (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I wrote you yesterday:
— I've added several pieces of information along with citations to support Cornell's notability.
— Believing that after my work today and over the past few days I could legitimately remove the template about the need for citations in the article, I did so today.
— Suddenly aware that I hadn't declared COI with Cornell (I know him a little), I did so in the edit summary when I removed the template. Augnablik (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put a hatnote in (one that addresses readers who might end up at that page without having used "Bharat" in the name). Meant to do it before but maybe forgot to save the page. Two-item disambiguation pages are not forbidden but are somewhat discouraged except in cases where there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the base name. That's probably not the case here. But I think 2-item DABs are harmless. If someone wants to be persnicketty about it, then they can nominate the DAB page for deletion. Interview: May be usable for WP:ABOUTSELF claims, but is not usable for claimed facts beyond that and does not count toward notability; only sources independent of the subject count toward the latter. CoI disclosure: good, though even better would be to no longer edit the article. Even the best-meaning and most careful CoI editing just raises other editors' alarm levels about whether the material is neutral and accurate. If you need to make more substantive changes to the article, it would be appropriate to instead use {{Edit CoI}} on the talk page (and be patient).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @SMcCandlish ... I was beginning to think I'd worn you out and that's why I hadn't heard from you for a while, though I can see how in demand you are!
1- Disambigution: although I was delighted you added the hatnote on Joseph Cornell's page, he is much more than simply an "educator." What he is notable for is being a nature educator.
That said, however, I frankly doubt that many readers will search for either Joseph Cornell (educator) or Joseph Cornell (nature educator). So to me, it makes more sense to make a DAB. That was what my mentor recommended to be done on with two Ramendra Kumars. Definitely seems harmless.
About WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is the first time I've heard of it. I read through the information but still haven't quite absorbed all of it and figured out which, if either Joseph Cornell is primary, but my overall thought is that if one gets a hatnote, why shouldn't the other one as well?
2- Interview and notability: okay, helpful.
3- COI disclosure: this is an area that I was surprised to see a huge amount of disagreement on among even senior editors, specifically whether never to edit an article with which we have even a tinge of COI vs. to go ahead and edit it as long as we're transparent and of course aim for objectivity.
Some months ago, wanting to really understand a few seeming discrepancies in Wiki documentation on COI, I raised a question about this at the Village Pump in hopes of finally getting clarity from the seniors I knew would pick up on it. I was amazed at what began to look like a free-for-all at times between editors on both sides of the spectrum. The thread went on for a long time.
I emerged with much more confidence that as long as COI is declared, and we're honest with ourselves and others, it's permissible to edit COI articles. After all, none of us can ever be 100% free from bias anyway, even with subjects with which we have no official COI.
That said, however, for several reasons I'd prefer that someone else pick up on this article now. It was a very helpful learning experience, with your guidance. Augnablik (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get sidetracked in other projects and sometimes bail on WP for weeks at a time. "Nature educator" is also fine, but it's not the purpose of disambiguation (in titles or in hatnotes) to serve an educational/informative function (that's what article text does), only ensure that the reader gets to the right place. Our rule is to use the most concise possible disambiguation string, at least in the title itself (i.e. never use "(nature educator)" unless "(educator)" is itself a disambiguation failure because of multiple notable educators by the same name. As for people finding the article: you'd be surprised how many readers suss out our disambiguation system and take stabs at it in the URL entry line. CoI: As with virtually all WP policy matters, there's a spectrum of opinion. The advice I give is safe-side. No one will fault you for avoiding CoI editing, but many will fault you for engaging in it even if some others will not. Anyway, glad I've been able to help some, with the caveat that my take on all this stuff is just one take on it among many.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand, SMcC, why the two Ramendra Kumars could end up — at my mentor's suggestion — with their own DAB as well as parenthetical descriptors following each name (author for one, politician for the other) on both their DAB page and their articles ... whereas for the two Joseph Cornells we're ending up with no DAB as well as no parenthetical descriptors for both an a hatnote only for the one involved in nature education.
I think your "no one will fault you" comment in connection with which side of the COI spectrum to choose is a really useful piece of advice, and that it should be in the COI documentation.
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Lastly, I thought to mention that you and I share Scottish ancestry. As a child, I got fascinated by Scotland and especially tartans. I actually asked for — and got — a little book of them. My family isn't sure exactly where our roots are in the "auld country," but we are certain that we have them (though along with additional roots elsewhere). Augnablik (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Kumars might both end up with a disambiguation string because neither is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Ramendra Kumar"; they are vying for it, if you will. But the artist/filmmaker is clearly the primary topic for Joseph Cornell: there is a great deal more source material about this person than the author/educator, and more readers will be looking for the former than the latter. A side factor is that the latter's preferred name now includes Bharat, which serves as a natural disambiguator without needing a parenthetical one to be used in his article title. But since he also published as just "Joseph Cornell" and some people will be looking for him by that name, redirects from "Joseph Cornell (writer)" and "Joseph Cornell (educator)" are good things to have in place. Not only because people who understand our disambiguation system may stab-in-the-dark at such a page title, but also because templates that auto-generate links to a particular set of contextual articles might expect them to exist (the largest deployed example I can think of is that various templates and scripts expect every language to be available at a "Language_Name language" or "Language_Name (language)" title or redirect, even in cases where "  language" or " (language)" might not be strictly necessary in the actual page title, perhaps because the demonym is a little different from the language name, or the specific language/dialect name doesn't have any other meaning than the language. An example of that would be Middle English, for which Middle English language and Middle English (language) exist as redirects (one natural disambiguation one parenthetic).

On the "no one will fault you" thinking: An analogy might be that [in most places] there isn't a law against tattooing your face, but it's probably not a good idea, as many people of my generation and later have learned the hard way.

Scottish families: If you know what the name(s) is/are, there's likely already a lot of information out there about where it was historically found and whether it was a clan or associated with one (most were not, contrary to popular belief). My own was an exception; it turned out so obscure and with such disputed history that I've had to do 30+ years of research about it, which is gathered at Cuindlis.org. Virtually no one else had looked into the matter, and the few that did, in 20th century, proved remarkably unreliable and often mutually contradictory. They relied largely on family stories not on documentary evidence, and spun a "west Highland chieftain with a castle" fairytale that cannot be supported with any documentary evidence of any kind. All of that evidence points to a SW Lowlands origin, with the surname developing as one (from earlier literal patronymic usage) in the 17th century or perhaps a bit earlier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly got my attention when you began speaking of a demonym! Never heard that word before. All kinds of scary imagery ran through my mind after I saw it, but of course my fears were allayed when I looked up the meaning of the word.
As for applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to the artist and nature educators Joseph Cornells, the artist wins the contest on the basis of third-party publications ... but if we could line up everyone in the world who'd simply ever heard of the two of them, I think the nature educator might win. Unfortunately, though, there doesn't seem to be as much published about him in the conventual places Wikipedians have to look. This conversation has made me begin thinking in turn about a side effect of Wikipedia's appearance and ever-increasing popularity in today's world: that if you're into promotional work — whether for yourself or someone else — you need to get as much as possible written by others about you or whoever you're promoting so that person can qualify for a Wiki article!
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 This conversation has been a delightful way to rekindle interest in my family's Scottish roots! Our family name is Kirby. I just made a quick side trip on the Web to see if I could find the part of Scotland we're likely from, as I didn't recall — if I ever knew. Although I still don't, I found the name is actually of Nordic origin because of the -by at the end and that many of us came over in the Norman invasion. Now I too am likely to get distracted .... Augnablik (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People (especially in "infotainment" circles) approaching Wikipedia as something to try to "qualify for" is itself a mistake. This is not promotional vehicle for "creators", but an information service for users who need to find out basic facts about topics of global significance. If your website or band is not already self-evidently of global significance by having received in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (the WP:Notability criterion), then it should not have an article here. It will not serve the interests of our readers, and will not really serve the interests of the "creator", because a skeletal article here will not have an impressive, promotional effect, and will not provide any more information that readers would already get by just Googling the name of whatever the person or project is. Meanwhile, if there has been any controversy of any kind about that person or project, our editors will find it and probably include it, even if it is from a long time ago, leading to quite the opposite of the "whitewashed promo" that a self-marketer would hope to see. A large number of invididuals and organizational entities wish they did not have an article here, because they have risen to significant notoriety or controversy that they have coverage here that, based on the coverage in the "real world", is far from flattering. The average person or group is vastly better off putting up their own website and just going about their business. WP will notice you when you need to be noticed, according to our readership needs, and you might wish that that point had not been reached.

As for the general background point: "if we could line up everyone in the world who'd simply ever heard of the two of them, I think the nature educator might win" isn't something that's directly testable, but the gist of it is for our practical purposes actually demonstrable as true or false: What we can do is see what the long-term focus is for such a name when it comes to which pages our readership in the aggregate end up going to (after the pages have existed for a while). This statistical analysis is frequently done as part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determination when there is doubt. Beware of the inverse form of the Dunning–Kruger effect, in which those steeped in a particular topic have an inflated sense of the understanding of the topic, and its details and terms and key figures, among the general populace (the "Surely everyone knows [insert obscurity here]" assumption problem). Much of the challenge of writing an encyclopedia well is coming to learn how one is making such assumptions and avoid making more of them. Aside from article titles and decisions of what should be covered and how, it also has a great deal to do with how to write effectively for a totally generalized audience at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The fact that you've found this useful is good feedback. I've run with your "add it to the documentation" idea, and created a section Template:Edit COI/doc#Why to use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! I went and checked it out. A wonderful addition. May your Wiki documentation career take off now, and dissipate your misplaced concern about not being photogenic enough to make "how-to videos." Augnablik (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been doing documentation here forever and ever. LOL I've been a WP:TemplateEditor for over a decade (which involves a great deal of documentation), and am one of the longest-term WP:MOS shepherds; see also User:SMcCandlish/Essays.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Somehow I'd picked up that you'd been thinking about doing documentation but had held back, just as you mentioned that you had on appearing in training videos. Still, my congratulations are not misplaced; they're just not in quite the same context as I'd thought. Do please, as a good shepherd, keep helping to give us editor sheep nice clear documentation and training materials — ideally with lots of practice and targeted feedback.
In a similar vein, Mathglot has been encouraging me to document what he calls my "pain points" before I get too far along the Wiki editor path and forget what they were. That's because he found out somewhere along the line that I'm actually an instructional designer in real life, and realized I'm approaching the Wiki learning curve from both perspectives. Frankly, I don't think I'll ever forget those pain points! 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 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 05:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

  • Les Jours and East View Press join the library
  • Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

[edit]
 Done
 – That one was actually already closed, but another was opened, so I responded in that one.
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of health insurance chief executive officers in the United States on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

[edit]
The Redirect Barnstar
To SMcCandlish with much gratitude for redirecting a complex editing situation involving redirects. Happy to add this to your amazing collection of barnstars. It's not only the most fitting choice for your help with this situation but also one I don't think I saw on the wall at your User page. Careful, though ... you're running out of space!

Oops, this version of the barnstar doesn't look like the updated one, but I copied and pasted what was there for the 2nd version. Perhaps the code itself needs redirecting. Augnablik (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Augnablik (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next up ... BLPSPSs

[edit]

— What I read at WP:BLPSPS sounds a little circular. It starts off by saying we should never use self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the article. I know personal websites are okay to cite, but the above guidance came as a surprise. So, then, anything else self-published is okay, like a web site about the work of the subject of an article (example: Sharing Nature, a foundation set up by Joseph Cornell about his programs, which I view as a very well-done and informative website)?

— Then WP:BLPSPS goes on to say, "it does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example." So, then, employee information like a list of professors and their years of service or professional contributions plus awards they've received is okay?

— Continuing, WP:BLPSPS says that blogs "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." This would presumably cover book companies that provide information about authors they publish, of which there are quite a few with useful information about Ramendra Kumar (example: Learning And Creativity Desk. “ParentEdge Magazine Lauds Effective Parenting: A New Paradigm.” Learning & Creativity, Sept. 28, 2016. https://learningandcreativity.com/parentedge-magazine-reviews-effective-parenting/) So, then, I can use it for the RK article (and other similar sources)?

— Assuming that sources like the above count as acceptable, might I still be questioned by other editors if I use them?

— And if I have any doubts that an editor would question any of my BLPSPS type of sources, is there a way I can write an explanation of the reliability of such sources that the editor would see but would be hidden from public view? (in other words, to head off a deletion or revert before it happens) Augnablik (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better asked at WT:BLP, as that's a hardcore policy not a guideline. The gist is that, per WP:ABOUTSELF policy, self-published sources can sometimes be used for certain sorts of claims made by the subject about the subject, but only if they are utterly non-controversial claims and there is no doubt as to their veracity. E.g., we can use Microsoft's website to source the claim that Windows 10 will stop receiving security updates on X date, because MS is the most reliable source for MS's own schedule, and we have no reason to believe they are lying. We can use Taylor Swift's social media posts as a source for what she claims as her strongest musical influences, since she'd know that better than anyone else could, and doesn't have a history of making up nonsense. We can't use any statement by Donald Trump or Rudolf "Minnesota Fats" Wanderone about their personal background, accomplishments, beliefs, etc., because both of these figures have well-documented and extensive histories of bullshitting about everything all the time. We can use Trump's Xitter posts as sources for what he claims his political plans are, since he does tend to kinda-sorta attempt to follow up on a lot of them. With regard to a writer or other content provider, we can't use self-published materials for anything that smacks of promotionalism: they are not reliable sources for sales records, for awards won, for positive reviews or other accolades, for influence or reception or importance, etc., etc. But would be a reliable source for something like "This book was published in 2017". Such sources do not count in any way toward establishing notability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically with regard to the above, the self-published blog of a publishing company is a reliable source in most circumstances for bare-fact details of something they've published (what the title is, who the author is, the general scope of the contents, etc.), but nothing promotional (claims of influence, importance, reception, sales, etc.). Whether such a source can be used for claims about the author (where they are from, what their educational background is, etc.), has been subject to renewed debate, which is why to ask about this on the policy's talk page. I've not been personally tracking that debate, which has been ongoing for about 2 years or so sporadically. Whether a self-published site is "very well-done and informative" is irrelevant; that's a judge of web-development competence, not source reliability. Sharing Nature doesn't qualify as "a reputable organisation" in this meaning, since it is obscure (i.e. doesn't really have much of a reputation at all). "employee information like a list of professors and their years of service or professional contributions plus awards they've received is okay?" Probably the first half of that, "a list of professors and their years of service", but not "professional contributions plus awards", which is promotional/aggrandizing in nature; the organizations granting the awards are the reliable sources for that (as would also be any independent coverage of the awards, like a newspaper or journal article). "professional contributions" is something judged by independent sources, like biographical material written by journals and other publishers that have no connection to the person they are writing about. LearningAndCreativity.com isn't somehow forbidden from use for anything as a general matter (e.g., I don't find it listed as categorically unreliable at WP:RSN), though it does not seem to have much of a reputation as a source/publisher. However, not only is the linked "article" above extremely trivial (summarizing someone else's review), it is certainly not independent of the subject: Kumar is one of L&C's most prolific staff writers [10][11]! The piece in question is assigned to a role account, "Learning And Creativity Desk", instead of a person, so it is very probable that Kumar wrote it himself, or had a friend at the site do it. The thing to do here would be to find the original ParentEdge review and cite that instead. There is no point of any kind in citing a pseudo-article that just claims a review exists and parrots from it a little. Go to the actual source not self-serving clickbait about the source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In all matters like this, ask yourself not "What can I get away with – what comes up just short of transgressing a rule?", but ask instead "What is best for readers – what most ensures the encyclopedic quality of the material?"  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SMcC …
I completely agree with you about not trying to aim low at "what can I get away with" but for the highest quality all around.
What I'm finding somewhat challenging is that on occasion there are different interpretations even among senior editors about the interpretation of what's okay to do vis a vis Wiki policy and guidelines.
Augnablik (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been that way. It's more of a continual community negotiation than something like a legal system. This is why I suggest asking about BLP policy questions at WT:BLP; you'll get a good slice of current community thinking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Love Island (2015 TV series) contestants 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 00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Constantine XI Palaiologos 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 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025

[edit]
story · music · places

2025 opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) - How are you? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just kind of swamped with off-site projects. Trying to overhaul a promising but malfunctional phpBB extension, cleaning up a genealogy database, and various other stuffs that keep me busy enough to not be around here much lately.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]
Disregard
 – WP:SNOW closure before I got to it.
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alan Turing on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 10:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nazi salute 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 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS and Eldridge Cleaver

[edit]

I am reaching out to you because you understand the intricacies of the Manual of Style much better than I do. I remember learning or being advised a long time ago that direct quotations should not include wikilinks. If I remember that advice correctly, that made sense to me then, since the selection of a wikilink might change to a greater or lesser extent the intended meaning of the author of the direct quote. On to the substantive issue: The current lead of Eldridge Cleaver quotes Cleaver as saying: If a man like Malcolm X could change and repudiate racism, if I myself and other former Muslims can change, if young whites can change, then there is hope for America. Inclusion in the lead indicates that this quote is important to understanding Cleaver. So, there are two wikilinks. If they are acceptable, then the first to Malcolm X is not a problem since that is obviously the person that Cleaver refers to. On the other hand, I do not believe that Cleaver's mention of "Muslims" unambiguously refers to the Nation of Islam. I certainly acknowledge that NOI was the largest Muslim group among African-Americans at that time, but there were many smaller groups such as the Muslim Mosque, Inc. founded by Malcolm X himself in 1965, and other African-Americans found their own path into more mainstream Muslim communities. Plus there were many smaller fringe Muslim groups. I think that there was increased diversity among African-American Muslims in the 1964-1968 time period and I am concerned that this piped link within this Malcolm X quotation creates a false impression. I removed the wikilink and got reverted. So, there is in my view a MoS issue and a content issue, and I would appreciate your input on either or both. Cullen328 (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "don't link in direct quotations" rule got abandoned about 5 years back, via an RfC. That was probably at WT:MOS, but maybe at WP:VPPOL. As a rule, virtually no one obeyed it, and it didn't produce good results when we did, causing us to wordily re-explain things with additional text before or after the quotation instead of just providing a link. Agree with your take on "Muslims" in this case; unless there are RS that tell us with certainty that this was the exact contextual meaning, an editor making that assumption is engaging in WP:OR and potentially misrepresenting the material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your input. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox song 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 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bierce

[edit]

If you've never read Ambrose Bierce's "Write it Right", then I have found it (and some other old gems) in the appendix of https://ereader.perlego.com/1/book/4376992/16 through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No login needed for it here: https://archive.org/details/writeitrightlitt00bierrich or here https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12474.

I'm generally a fan of his (especially The Devil's Dictionary), though not all of his advice has aged gracefully, even in the first few entries: His demand for an hotel and an heroic has not really survived much except in the most pretentious modern usage (and in informal speech in dialects with a silent leading-h, like Cockney). Likewise, his preference for about instead of around in "The debris of battle lay about them" hasn't fared well, either, and contradicts much of his other advice (which returns again and again to avoiding terms that have other, conflicting meanings and may be confusing); his rationale isn't even right, as the round in around is not synonymous with circular (e.g. oblongs are also round).

But probably 80% of that material is still good advice, at least in a formal register.

Some bits of it are curmudgeonly, logical resistance that I subjectively like but which aren't having any real-world effect. A good example is the entry on laundry, which also has implications for the British insistence on spelling jewelry as jewellery; the latter is properly the working establishment of a jeweller, as a bakery is that of a baker and a smithy that of a smith. That stuff reminds me tangentially of the nonsensical shift in meaning of cat litter from 'cat scat' to 'sandy stuff in which cats leave their scat', a change that happened some time before I was born but which still makes me chuckle. Why would anyone want to pay money for "cat litter"?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Bierce features prominently in my email sig over the last year or two:
"History, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant,
which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools."
—Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)
"When you're born in this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show.
And when you're born in America, you're given a front row seat.
And some of us get to sit there with notebooks."
—George Carlin, Archive of American Television interview (2008)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are others I disagree with, e.g., "Substantiate for Prove. Why?" Because the former doesn't imply that the evidence was accepted as proof. But it's still a fun read. There are others in that book that might equally amuse you. There is a list of words/meanings that William Cullen Bryant banned from his newspaper: casket when coffin was meant, day before yesterday without a preceding definite article, even reliable when trustworthy is meant, and a style guide from James Gordon Bennett Jr. as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would have agreed with the casket point back in that era, but today they've taken on distinct meanings. A casket is the modern rectangular sort, while a coffin is the historical tapered sort (the Halloween-decorations traditional shape).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide 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 09:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Hi, SMcC,

We've been conversing about several different facets of Wiki style and procedures over the past month or so, and I'd really like to follow up on a few but without going back to add more length to those already lengthy threads.

— One thing I wanted to do was thank you for taking care of a number of formatting issues in the Joseph Cornell article, especially removing the quotation marks around titles of publications and then italicizing the titles. I'd purposely left them along to focus on taking care of more basic things, like citations to make more of a case for Cornell's notability.

— Then, thinking how you may well be on the cusp of a new expansion of your role as a Wiki style guru, I thought to call your attention to a recent Teahouse discussion in which an editor asked how to edit articles for which the expert sources diverged on important facts like dates of events or numbers of people involved. In responding to the questioner, one of the senior staff suggested he read WP:When sources are wrong. Because I'd run into a somewhat similar situation in an article — one that you and I hadn't discussed — I consulted that source too. I found it really valuable not just about "when sources are wrong" but also what it could offer as a model for Wiki style documentation to cover situations because it provided:

— Alternative methods editors can use to address a challenging situation, clearly described and enumerated
— Great case studies in which editors can see the value of applying those alternatives

Like, for instance, to help us decide which of several legitimate choices we have in handling different situations involving the subject matter and length of the article such as ways we might subdivide different articles ... decisions about ways we might create citations ... and ways we might title the footnotes and reference sections. Your recent contribution to the COI documentation was just a glimmer of what else you could do along those lines. Augnablik (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with that essay, because it is nearly missing, and definitely hiding and discounting, the most obvious and most common approach, one that we use constantly: When sources that otherwise seem reliable are in disagreement about a claimed fact, we present that as a real-world disagreement, and describe both (or more) positions, giving them due weight. The central problem with the essay is that it mentions this approach only in passing, as if it's something we rarely need to do, and even suggests that it only be done when "there is strong reason to think many or most sources are wrong or there is nothing approaching a consensus of sources". As a policy matter, that is simply flat-out wrong. What we do by default per WP:DUE policy is present all encyclopedically-worth-noting viewpoints on the subject at issue, weight them according to their support level in the sources (and there is usually a strongly dominant one verging on a consensus of sources, to which we give the most weight).

To the extent the rest of the essay has ideas that are sometimes applicable, I agree with the gist of it, as to the techniques that can be used when certain sources are provably full of crap, or when the preponderance of other sources' evidence suggests in the aggregate that another source is full of crap, or when a writer, otherwise reputable, makes extraordinary claims not backed up by extraordinarily good evidence (all of which are somewhat different cases). Despite never having read that essay before (that I recall), I actually already employ most of those techniques, as needed. That suggests that they generally are in keeping with community practices (since I didn't make up my own solutions to such things, but absorbed them from WP existing practice). The only place the essay seems to be going wrong is the one I highlighted.

Anyway, most of its techniques are ones that I employed in Tartan and the split-off articles I'm slowly working on (the Tartan article itself is at least 5× too long; the material is encyclopedically comprehensive and researched with very nearly every available source on the topic (which I've been amassing for 30 years), but is far too much to have in a single article. I've already split off Regimental tartan, and am almost done with User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Tartan design and weaving, and will next probably make Clan tartan into article instead of a sectional redirect, then do History of Tartan, and we'll see from there). The on-topic point is that many tartan-related sources, especially those from before about 1950, are reliable for certain basic facts but grossly unreliable for others, the more so the more historico-analytic the claims are and the more so the older the source is, with the Georgian–Victorian ones veering from romanticist fantasy to cynical commercial exploitation to outright proven forgery. Yet many of these unreliable sources will be quoted by later writers and believed by members of the general public, so the bullshit in them has to be addressed head-on, sometimes directly in the prose, more often in footnotes, and these WP-editorial decisions backed up with citation to more reliable actual research that can demonstrate the claims it is making instead of blowing Celtic Twilight smoke.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to re-read WP:When sources are wrong with your critique in mind. It didn't hit me as I was going through it the first time, perhaps because I was so ecstatic to find Wiki documentation (an essay, at least) set up so well for training. The lack of it has really been an ongoing "pain point" for me as the instructional designer confronts the agonized and frustrated toddler Wiki editor or vice versa.
I think my recent experience in trying to "follow suit" in footnotes and bibliographies (or similarly termed references) in an article previously set up using sfn templates and reflists, trying to use Wiki documentation and even when seeking direct help from senior editors, may forever occupy the highest notch on my pain point scale — we'll see.
That Tartan article is probably the longest I've ever seen in Wikipedia. It does feel unwieldy at its current length, but I'll be interested how you finally slice it because I sometimes worry that doing that can make topics seem less unified way. For example, when I did some editing on the Houseboat article, I was amazed to discover another article entitled Houseboats in New York City, which to me made absolutely no sense to be a separate article — and frankly still does, considering that the article I edited isn't what I think of as very long. Augnablik (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik: You may find my crash course at User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates helpful. Even I didn't fully understand these templates, for years (and this is reflected in the half-assed citation formatting job I did at Tartan and haven't cleaned up yet, but you can see the same sort of cleanup I did just recently do at the draft split-off article here). After working on the tartan article, I actually learned in-depth how to use these templates and what a concision and easy-of-use benefit they provide once they're understood properly, but I found the formal template documentation of them obtuse (and missing some salient details), which is why I wrote that essay. Slicing up the tartan subject: It's a great deal of work, especially because citations have to be ported from the original article into the "child" piece seamlessly, the material rewritten to flow as a stand-alone article and to have appropriate depth for the sub-topic, and then the original material in the first article replaced with a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE précis, again with citations adjusted. Doing each of the two split-offs I've done (regimental and design/manufacture) was several days of full-time work. As for "[narrow topic] in [place]" articles, they rarely make sense unless there is something unique about the intersection. Yet editors (especially newer ones, and one with a "local/regional pride" motivation) can be incredibly insistent about creating and defending them. Deflating such a quasi-promotional endeavor can be almost more work than it is worth. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet meme trolls in Kerala, in which I had to do about 10x as much source research and analysis as the person trying to defend the "article" (collection of largely unrelated local-interest trivia that coincidentally had something to do with the Internet, as does pretty much everything today).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 15:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NICKNAME

[edit]
 Done

Hi. I see in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2017_archive#Toward_a_MOS:NICKNAME that you are the original author of this guideline, at least the earliest form. We're not clear on whether the suggested form applies to all nicknames or just the ones that are the article title. Can you weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#How_should_we_interpret_MOS:NICKNAME? We'll probably want a clarifying sentence in the guideline whichever way. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]
 Done

A redirect or redirects you have created 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/2025 February 7 § pin game until a consensus is reached. consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent references to the same person

[edit]

SMcC, I'd really appreciate your take on three style issues:

  1. I'm editing an article in which the first occurrence of someone's name (other than the subject of the article) gets linked to either a Wikipedia article or some outside source, but re-linked almost every later time it's used. To me, this seems overkill ... but as I thought about it, I could see that perhaps the thinking is that this avoids concern about some readers skipping over the link the first time. Is there a Wiki preference one way or the other?
  2. Some articles, when mentioning a famous city like Tokyo or New York, also provide the name of the country or state as well. Again it seems overkill to me. But is it a Wiki preference?
  3. Lastly, some articles use links on even common things like cab or pepper to a dictionary definition. I can't believe anyone reading Wikipedia would need help on that basic a level. But is this sort of linkage something that Wikipedia prefers we should just leave alone when we see it?

Augnablik (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the same order:
  1. It might be overkill, but I'd have to see the article to be sure. We formerly had a "link once per article" provision, but this was changed by RfC several years ago to "Link once per major section". See MOS:DUPLINK. And we are not to use links to other websites directly in article text per WP:EL; if some external link is needed with regard to some subject like a biographical figure, it goes in a citation. If you ever see something like "According to an interview with Smith on YouTube with [https://www.youtube.com/@dylan_anderson Dylan Anderson] ..." (not the Dylan Anderson we have encyclopedia material about, so [[Dylan Anderson]] can't be used for this), that needs to get replaced with "According to an interview with Smith on YouTube with Dylan Anderson<ref>{{cite web | ... cite the actual interview here, not the profile of the interviewer ...}}</ref> ...". If it's something like "McNabb became CTO of [https://example.com/ BigBizCorp] in 2013", that needs to be "McNabb became CTO of [[BigBizCorp]] in 2013", or simply "McNabb became CTO of BigBizCorp in 2013" if BigBizCorp is not notable and doesn't have an article here.
  2. After the name of major city (one globally recognizable by English-speakers), it is usually overkill and undesirable to also name (much less link) the country and/or a subnational unit like a US state or a Canadian province or a UK county or whatever, unless either:
    • The name is encyclopedically ambiguous: Portland, Maine, vs. Portland, Oregon. But not London, UK, vs. London, Ontario, the latter being rather unfamiliar to everyone but Canadians; even Canadians say/write "London, Ontario" unless the context makes is absolutely clear that the local one is meant, e.g. "I'm stopping in London on my drive from Toronto to Port Huron." Which place came first doesn't matter; Birmingham, England, and Birmingham, Alabama, are about equally well known, if you average it all out. But Boston, Massachusetts, is the Boston, and hardly anyone outside of England has ever heard of its original namesake, Boston, Lincolnshire, a town of only 45,000. By contrast, Cambridge, England, is vastly better known than Cambridge, Massachusetts (named after the former), despite the latter being home to Harvard University and MIT, among other institutions.
    • Or, there's a contextually specific reason to include that additional information (e.g. in a table, to have consistently formatted entries; and we also often do it in infoboxes, on the first line in which a country would appear (usually birthplace in a bio). This is covered at MOS:OVERLINK.
  3. Linking everyday words should not be done (per MOS:OVERLINK again), unless there's a contextually specific reason to do it, e.g. in an article on botany, trade, or spices, it might be pertinent to link to black pepper or to chili pepper depending on which kind is meant. For "cab" meaning 'taxicab', there would pretty much never be a reason to link that. If an article about transit/transport, it might make sense to link something like "ridesharing companies versus the traditional taxicab industry", because they are contextually important and the reader may need to compare/contrast them in detail for full understanding. But in "Jones was last seen entering a cab [or taxi, or taxicab, whatever the wording] on 17 April 2022", there is no reason to link "cab" (or either of the alternative words). Similar rationales are likely to apply to other meanings of the word "cab". In a bio, use no "cab" link in "Smith's cell phone was hacked after it was left behind in the cab of a limo". But in an article on automotive wiring, it might make sense (at first occurrence of these terms) to do: "The fuse box in most modern automobiles is within the cab, usually on the lower part or underside of the dashboard, but in some older or specialty vehicles way be within the engine compartment or even in the trunk/boot", because the reader needs to understand precisely what these terms refer to, might be a non-native English speaker or a child unfamiliar with the terms, and car-part terms vary by regional dialect a lot anyway.
Figuring out when to add/keep/remove a link takes some absorption of encyclopedia writing skill over time. The basic question to ask is whether the reader is likely to need, in this particular context, some of the information in the linked article or not. No one reading up about a missing person or phone-hacked celeb has any need of details about what a taxi is or a car interior and its parts are. But someone learning about politico-economic disputation about transport options is likely to need to know how to distinguish taxis from rideshares in various ways. And someone trying to figure out why their car went dead after a popping noise when they tried to start it this morning may need basic car-parts terminology info. (Even if WP isn't the best place for them to get it, it is in the top 10 websites in the world and probably is still no. 1 for informational sites, so many people will start here whether they should for a particular need or not; same applies to medical and legal as well as technical information.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:R from style" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]
 Done

The redirect Template:R from style 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/2025 February 13 § Template:R from style until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INITIALS has an RfC

[edit]
 Done

MOS:INITIALS has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 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 01:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February thanks

[edit]
story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in February! - I point at a composer today, as the main page does. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification about what a main editor is! - I face the same problem where I didn't expect it, for infobox opera that is, the standard for operas, present in 1720 opera articles (as of today), including most FAs (Carmen, L'Orfeo ...) but not Rinaldo. History: the "main autor" died. Before, he had reverted an infobox for Rinaldo because another main editor had threatened to leave Wikipedia if Handel's operas had infoboxes instead of the sidebar (of - old - Handel pictured and links to his other operas and oratorios, - I can't show you because it has been deleted as the community wished). That editor left anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of "I'm going to quit Wikipedia if I don't get my way about infoboxes on articles me and my friends WP:OWN" grandstanding and hold-the-community-hostage behavior coming from the composer/classical/opera project-circle is another example of why yet another ArbCom case about F'ing infoboxes is probably inevitable. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it takes an arbcase. - I was trained not to tell people whose memory is fading that this is so. Did you notice that all three opera articles were written by the same, only in this one - see above. He also wrote an essay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"companion piece" - the belief that its author argued against infoboxes is widespread, but I don't share it. He came up, during the end of the infobox arbcase and during FAC preparations for the article, with this experiment for a compromise, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not, so will moderate that claim. I remember him as consistently anti-i'box, but I clearly missed some discussions in which he was not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A discussion with him, about infobox opera for Carmen, has been copied to the the talk of {{infobox opera}}, DYK? April 2013: "In summary, subject to further discussion on the outstanding points, I can't think that anyone would have much objection to an opera infobox using a template along such lines." (archived, of course) There was an infobox for Carmen, soon after the first main page appearance (for which they were afraid of protests) for as long as he lived, without any problems (besides debates about the image), and after his death through a second TFA show. And on that background look at Rinaldo, perhaps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"afraid of protests" is entirely the issue. The very fact that there has been a miasma of editorial fear in a particular tripartite but interrelated topic sector, causing people to tip-toe around the often unreasonable demands of a vanishingly small number of editors simply because the latter behave WP:VESTED with regard to "their own" articles, and that this continues after multiple ArbCom cases, is a serious issue. The community needs to break the back of this problem. It is not okay for a gaggle of topic-devoted editors to lord it over at least three vast categories of articles and browbeat every other editor on the system into obeying their demands.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, and thank you for your part in the breaking of the back of the problem! - I noticed that you may want to correct one more thing in your "companion piece", perhaps even the title. The so-called report came in October, after the case, and the "fresh look" in July, during the case, and before the opera initiative (also during the case), followed by a similar one for a composer, Percy Grainger, after the case (check my 2013 archive). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; I just misread which preceded the other. However, I see even more disturbing stuff in there: "It looks like an infobox was in this article continuously from May 2010 until August 2019, when it was boldly removed by an editor "per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes" (an unenforceable WikiProject advice page). It has since been re-added in (that I could easily find in the history) May 2020, May 2024, and February 2025, and re-removed as many times." [12] If you ask me, this is already grounds for another ArbCom case, seeking topic-bans from infoboxes, because this is some particular people from a particular wikiproject abusing long-term "slow edit-war" and stonewall tactics against all comers, to try to "enforce" a WP:PROJPAGE essay as if policy, directly against prior rulings of ArbCom on such matters, against WP:CONLEVEL policy, against community consensus in an RfC examining the exact PROJPAGE in question, and against the very long-term status quo at that article and various editors' attempts to restore it to that state, which is what we do when an impasse is happening (though I don't think this really is an impasse, because the arguments against an i'box in that article are very weak). This has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good plan --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow is Chopin's birthday. look, 2015, per consensus - some seem to have missed that. (reverted soon by Francis Schonken - later banned - and returned in 2023) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College 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 19:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]
 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Erik Satie 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 13:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured vs coloured in South Africa

[edit]

Hi SMcCandlish :) I dug around in the MOS talk archives and saw you were present in and central to basically all of the relevant conversations. I was wondering whether you'd be open to discussing the capitalization of the word "coloured", both in the MOS and in the articles affected by it. I see you seem to understand the C to be capitalized, but (I am South African) we use white, black, and coloured without a capital letter.

Despite my account age I am new to contributing to Wikipedia (currently reading the MOS) so I don't know what the right jargon or process is to make this case. To better understand your stance I searched for sources as I imagine you might have and found a lot of non-South African sources which capitalize the C, presumably as a well-intentioned mark of respect. Respectfully, they are wrong; they are perhaps a unilateral exoticization which does not represent reality in SA.

You might be interested in the South African GCIS editorial style guide which I digested when I worked as an editor in SA.

coloured people, coloureds (lowercase initials).

You can also look at any post-94 newspaper article 1 2 3 4 5 6, all of which will follow modern convention. You do start seeing the capital C pre 1994, it's more of an apartheid relic (the apartheid regime's specific jargon for the ethnic group was Cape Coloured, a subset of Coloured), but it has minimal real-world representation after that. You will also occasionally see stuff like 7, but note that this author is also capitalizing white and black against SA norms; I would guess that they have consumed a lot of US media. Finally, I also found someone else making the same case into the void (lol).

I am profoundly uninterested in fighting, so if you tell me you think I am wrong I will leave it at that, but this is a meaningful divergence from reality for Wikipedia and I thought you might be the right person to flag it to (having both the interest and relevant experience to do the necessary to fix it). Or if you are indifferent, I would appreciate your perspective in how to approach a fix (start with the MOS, right?)

Thanks for your time. Emberfiend (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will actually put in some time, since this is worth digging into in detail with some aggregate source analysis. (Not because of any interest in fighting, but because we need to take this stuff seriously, especially when dealing with names or labels of ethnic and other social groups.) The short version is that I doubt that lower-casing "Coloured" would go over well here, at least in the modern sense used as an identifier of a mixed-ethnic population (one similar in many way so the concept of African American, virtually all of whom are ancestrally blended, not solely African). Lower-casing it in historical senses as a politico-legal classification during the apartheid (or Apartheid if you prefer) era and earlier as a loose epithet used by colonial settlers, would more properly be lowercase. But the modern ethnic identifier probably not, because lowercasing it will be singling out a particular ethno-cultural group for very noticeable de-emphasis, apt to be felt as denigrating. Sensitivity to matters of this sort is something that has shifted markedly within my own lifetime, and really come to head since the 2010s. I.e., there is a shift in usage underway (not one that will necessarily be long-term successful; I can't predict the future, and the wave of jingoistic hyper-conservatism sweeping the Western world is not to be underestimated). This relates strongly, of course, to a recent-ish shift to capitalize (or capitalise, if you prefer) "Black" in such a sense, and follow-on moves to capitalize "White" and the more catch-all "Brown" in the same way. (That last is primarily an Americanism or at least a North Americanism, inclusive of pretty much everyone outside the "White" and "Black" categories, and the latter rather loosely defined – someone with, say, a single African-American grandparent might be still called "Black" in American English if they have some African phenotypic features, and British usage appears to me to lean in this direction as well, as does Canadian) [Edit: Actually, "brown" has been used a similar non-specific way in the context of SA ethnic groups; CCHDC activist Joseph Little in in 1997 at the Khoisan Identities and Cultural Heritage Conference, on changing post-apartheid affirmative action policies: "under the previous dispensation we weren’t white enough, with the next we weren’t brown enough".[13]]

Where this will end up (in general English usage) is an open question. Because of the psychosocial effect of lowercasing, especially in the presence of other such terms (notice what stands out in "The longevity statistics of Asian, black, Caucasian, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific, and Semitic study participants ..."), I suspect that the result is going to be to treat "Black", "White", and "Coloured" as (or "as if", depending on how you like to think of such matters) proper names AKA proper-noun phrases, at least when such terms are accepted names for ethno-cultural groups in particular. Not so with attempts to capitalize things like "deaf", "lesbian", and other groupings of others sorts. This is also related to capitalizing "Indigenous", "Native", and "Aboriginal" in regards to groups who use those terms as official or widely-adopted designations. (Various activists push this too far and seek to capitalize them literally any time they have human referents, but the real world is clearly not adopting this practice; you are only very rarely going to encounter something like "Scots and then English began to supplant the Gaelic that was the predominant Native language in south-west Scotland by the 15th century, and Gaelic was extinct there by the 18th century, or perhaps surviving in isolated pockets until the early 19th." The "Native" is just pretentious and brow-beating at best.)

Back to "Coloured" in particular: I don't wallow in SA media, and I'm hard-pressed to find a searchable modern corpus of SA English publications (Google Ngrams provides US and UK, and a general English one). So, it's hard for me to assess what the present-day norms might be across all sorts of publishing. News is low-hanging fruit, though it has style divergent in many ways from other forms of publishing. I'm not finding a good, searchable SA news aggregator, so just went site by site manually. I find that lowercase for these terms dominates in SA news, but is hardly the the exclusive usage, even in the top 20 or so sites provided by one index of SA news: eNews Channel Africa (eNCA.com) regularly capitalizes "Coloured", e.g. in constructions like "tackling the issues facing the Coloured community nationwide"[14] and "issues within the Coloured community continue"[15]. The South African uses both styles (probably a result of leaving some style decisions to individual writers): "Tensions brew between coloured and black communities in Nigel over housing occupation"[16], but "ActionSA demands answers over exclusion of Coloured applicants in traffic wardens posts"[[sic][17]. Same with The Bullrushes (of Johannesburg): "...in the old cemetery ... English graves were separated from Afrikaans graves. Whites were buried on one side, and blacks, Indians and coloureds on the other side."[18], yet "Africans, Asians, Coloureds, and Whites all received their distinct forms of education ..."[19]. Perhaps this is representing a different sensibility for historical usage as an imposed label versus modern usage as a self-identifier or at least a broadly accepted one. From the same publication: "Section 1 of the B-BBEE Act limits benefits to black people, which includes Africans, Coloureds and Indians that are South African citizens by birth or descent, or by naturalisation prior to 27 April 1994."[20] (quoting an official statement from a B-BBEE commissioner; and note the curious legal redefinition, and lowercase, of "black" in this particular context, to mean something other than it usually does in SA English and be inclusive even of SA Indians – to mean basically what "people of color", "Black and Brown people", or "BIPOC" mean in [left-leaning] American English (or a bit narrower with a citizenship requirement in that particular legal sense). Some Xitter and other social-media usage I've skimmed is a mixture, and not all of the capital-C "Coloured" is coming from the left; I thought to look because African Insider, out of Joburg, quotes what seems like a racist or at least racialist rant on X that capitalizes it.[21] The same paper again quotes a left activist (and former Public Protector) using it (and "white") lowercase, jarringly mixed with uppercase ethnonyms: "through the Group Areas Act of 1950 the government stole land and other movable property from Indians, coloureds and Africans and gave it to whites".[22] That looks like someone who's just pressing the shift key at the beginning of every other word as some kind of game, heh. Left to its own devices, African Insider seems to prefer lower case (e.g. lots of it here). iAfrica (a Primedia masthead, out of Joburg again): "the low number of registered [organ] donors from Black, Coloured and Indian population groups"[23] (also used "people of colour", adapting American jargon), but "The Khoisan ... demand the abolition of the 'coloured' classification—a legacy of apartheid—and the return of ancestral lands ...."[24], then "One of the largest and most established communities (classified 'Coloured' under Apartheid racial classification legislation) ...."[25], but then "... an investigation into racism at schools across the Western Cape following a distressing incident. ... black students were forced into the roles of slaves, while their coloured classmates pretended to auction them off."[26], then back to "Cape Town ... with the vast majority of poor and working-class families (who are predominantly Black and Coloured) still being confined to townships and informal settlements on the outskirts ...."[27]. So, that one seems to just leave it up to the writer.

That some go uppercase but others lowercase is meaningful. And I would bet money that there's a socio-political angle. There are probably more angles, one of which I've hinted at, as have these quotations. Namely, "[c|C]oloured" really has at least three meanings in the SA context: 1) An informal and racialist colonial epithet (an exonym) invented historically by White (or white, whatever) settlers for ethnically mixed people (basically the Brito-Afrikaner version of Italian/Spanish/Portuguese/French mulatto and similar "hypodescent" ancestry-labeling terms in the colonial Americas – which seem virtually never capitalized by anyone). 2) An apartheid-era legal and politico-regulatory classification (another thing usually not capitalized) that included some African or mostly-African descendant people, especially the Khoisan – who are actually the oldest group in the area, according to anthropologists. (That said, there's been some "neo-Khoisan" disputation, about allegedly rather random Coloured groups forming and claiming to be Khoisan or some other tribal group to claim benefits and even take over land. There have been some "fake Indian tribe" issues in the US occasionally, too.) The apartheid-period definition even lumped mainland-Chinese immigrants into "coloured" for some reason. 3) A largely post-apartheid ethnonym used by many people (this sort of term is usually capitalized, at least in modern material). That last is rejected by some to whom it could pertain, often on an individual basis, but there is certainly a "Coloured[s]" identity group well-established, including with advocacy organizations, like the Cape Cultural Heritage Development Council, and even a political party, National Coloured Congress. There are probably additional nuanced meanings; there's a paper about it [28], but I don't have full text right now; could probably get the EBSCOHost copy, via WP:TWL. There even seems to be a book[29] about (in part) the transition of this term from a legalistic classification to an enthno-cultural group identity.

How much does SA news usage (reflecting probably predominantly White SA vernacular usage) matter? I'm not entirely sure, but lean toward "not much", other than it demonstrates lack of uniformity. This isn't SouthAfricaPedia, and we do not write articles which are on regionally-confined or -significant topics to appeal to the sensibilities of a particular element of the societies in those places, but for a much broader audience. MOS:ENGVAR turns out not to be factor, because it cannot actually be shown that lowercase-c is a "rule" in SA English, like the -our versus American -or spelling in that an similar words ("neighbour", "honour") is, or the -re versus -er in "theatre" is. In that wider regard, what is of primary importance is broader usage outside of SA-local popular media, and instead in high-quality publications that are closer to an encyclopedic register, than to lowest-common-denominator news blather (which is always written to expediency-driven stylesheets). So, Google Books Ngrams is our next stop. It indexes scanned book content. It does contain some lower-quality material (especially for results after 2019), but overall it's a good indicator of usage in professionally written material. Here are some pretty carefully scoped searches: [30][31][32] These generally show that, in English across the world, "Coloured" in the South African sense[s] is capitalized more often than lowercased, despite the somewhat majority preference in SA newspapers and their e-equivalents for lowercase (perhaps also among some other groups of SA writers; it is hard to tell with the materials so far). These results are not perfect, since they can't tease out title-case usage in titles and headings, and cannot rule out occasionally irrelevancies like "South African coloured wigs" or whatever, but it's not really credible that gaps this wide could be caused by such false positives.

Next, let's try a Google Scholar search, indexing primarily academic journal articles (there are some magazines and even some books in here, but the vast majority of the results are identifiably RS material) [33]. There's a significant amount of capital-C in this, though it is the minority usage. Looking over specific results (tediously), I was mystified at first, because in looking at every hit in the first 5 pages of search results, I found: 21 sources using lowercase, 11 using uppercase, 14 using a mixture, and 1 indeterminate (too little text freely available, and original title in allcaps). The mixed ones mostly formed a very strange pattern, of lowercase in the title, but uppercase in the displayed body text (rather the opposite of what one would expect). For those, I took the time to examine the originals when available (or at least the original journal database entries Google was scraping). Of these, I found that 10 were Google misrepresenting lowercase in the title, 2 really did seem to be that way (but might be the journal dbs misrepresenting the title – for neither of those was a PDF or other image available, though uppercase was clearly used in the article body), 1 had a curious habit of uppercasing it as a noun and lowercasing adjectival uses, and 1 even more narrowly lowercased only derivational use like "coloured blindness" in SA politics, but both noun and adj. in direct reference to the population group was capitalized. So what this really amounts to is 21 lowercase, 25 entirely or almost entirely uppercase, and 1 unknown. So, uppercase proved to dominate. There's a slight trend toward capitalizing in the sense of an ethnonym for a present-day population or populations, and if it's more specific (e.g. "Cape Coloured") it is even more likely to be capitalized; but to lowercases it as a politico-legalism or as a historical epithet. Definitely not a clear-cut line, though. Plenty of the lowercase use is in the modern-population-identifier sense, and those prone to capitalizing it probably do so regardless. Two things in noticed while going over this material is that if the writer is Coloured or Black they are more likely to capitalize, and if the writer is not self-identifying that way the more likely to lowercase (especially if a critic or polemicist, e.g. a real gem from South African Journal of Philosophy with ranty stuff like "... among so-called coloureds in South Africa ..." and "... the cacophonic plurality of so-called coloured ...." This has some implications.) At any rate, I submit that all the above is pretty conclusive evidence that capital-C on this is not a Wikipedia "unilateral exoticization". If it is an exoticization [I'm surprised you'd prefer a z in that], and really nearly all SA publisher including academic ones lean heavily lowercase, it's an exoticization being imposed by the rest of the English-language publishing world (increasingly over time), and which WP has simply gone along with, as more consistent with other proper naming and with a majority (though not an overwhelming one) of the RS material.

One interesting bit I found in passing while digging through sources found in that GScholar search: Whether to capitalize the "c" has been somewhat politically debated, even among the population to whom the term pertains since at least 1994, in the development of a post-apartheid "coloured consciousness and ... [then-]emerging coloured identity" according to a paper in an edited academic volume: Rasool, Ebrahim (1996). "Unveiling the heart of fear". In James, Wilmot; Caliguire, Daria; Cullian, Kerry; Levy, Janet; Westcott, Shauna (eds.). Now That We Are Free: Coloured Communities in a Democratic South Africa. IDASA/FNS, Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 54–55. ISBN 9781555876937. (FWIW, the book uniformly lowercases the term, along with "black" and "white", but it's also just a hair short of 30 years old. In a new book of this sort written today, I would expect that it would be capitalized, at least in this latter-day sense, by at least some of the authors. This later paper[34] in a similar vein does so.) Another side point is that "Black" in the SA sense actually often has a narrower meaning than it does anywhere else, inclusive only of particular native/indigenous African ethno-cultural groups, but exclusive of others, including the Khoisan. So for that narrowed sense of the name, there's actually a stronger argument to capitalize it than there would be in the North American and British very generalized sense which basically equates to "noticeably of sub-Saharan African descent of any kind". Rather in the middle are terms like "Native American" and Canadian "First Nations", inclusive of unrelated ethnic groups, multiple language families, and gene pools that are very distinct (even if ultimately of north Asian origin toward the end of the last Ice Age). A third passing point is that capitalization of "Coloured[s]" in an ethic sense seems to go back quite away; a major article (cited at by at least 22 later works) on the subject of them in an anthropological not politico-legal sense, has capital-C throughout and dates to 1950 [35]. This one[36] from 1967 has been cited even more. I can't presently very well evaluate whether there was a marked shift in or immediately after 1994 toward lowercase (at least in SA publications; I would need to find some way to examine a boatload of them from the 1948–1994 range), but I'm not sure it matters much, since the capitalization (even if it slumped for a while) is on the rise, at least for "sense 3". The immediate evidence is this: If we re-do the above GScholar search but constrained to the last 5 years worth of articles only [37], then the capitalization rate increases markedly (though I'm not going to do another one-by-one count; that took a while).

My default (I'm rather notorious for it) is to lowercase pretty much anything WP can get away with lowercasing. But there's a logic problem with doing it in this kind of case, specifically because these terms are serving as ethno-cultural or so-called "race" names (not descriptions or classifiers), thus are serving the function of proper names, regardless how they originated. (Really, virtually all names ultimately have a traceable linguistic meaning, except when they are invented silliness, like Mxyzptlk, though some real ones are uncertain/debated, including my own surname, which I've been researching for 30-odd years.) It's ultimately the etymological fallacy to decide that because such a term a has/had another more prosaic, common-noun meaning that it cannot be a proper name when used as one. (By that "reasoning", the Blackfoot Indians are really "blackfoot", and even Pacific peoples would have to "pacific". The brainfart there is obviously that these are not literal description, but metaphor; the Blackfoots don't have dark extremities, Polynesians are not unusually placid, and the Coloureds do not display rainbows of hues like bird plumage nor were they coloured in by anyone.) The variable use in SA is pretty clearly indicative that some simply do not want to capitalize "black", "coloured", and "white" because they are also, in other contexts, everyday words, and some are probably resistant to do it simply because of prescriptive notions they grew up with about the "right" way to write, and a habit of language preservationism/traditionalism. (There are habits I'm not entirely immune to, but they aren't much affecting me on this particular matter because the logic of applying the same capitalization to all ethnic names, as a proper-name class by definition, is much more compelling.)

In closing, the question is whether MoS's rather blanket statement on this (to use capital-C "Coloured" in reference to the South African population) should be changed. I think it's not problematic as it is, really. Nothing has "broken" as a result of it. From a WP:P&G perspective, we have some rules that interact complicatedly. The lead of MOS:CAPS has us lowercase, by default, anything that is not "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources" (and "coloured", like "black" and "white", is not). However, further down the guideline, at MOS:PN, we have an instruction to always capitalize a proper name, except for rare exceptions (usually trademarks like iPod and a few artiste names like k.d. lang) that begin lowercase and the majority of sources go along with that lowercase stylization in that case. "Coloured" as an ethnonym, in its modern usage, qualifies as such a proper name by most sensible measure, but doesn't qualify for lowercasing since sources do not uniformly lowercase it. We also have a de facto principle to consider WP:ABOUTSELF: The subject (even a group one) can be a reliable source for its own name, so the more Coloureds prefer that name and capitalize it (and the number seems to be growing not shrinking), the stronger the pressure on us to do so. Altogether, this suggests that if the rule were to change, it should be to capitalize it as an ethno-cultural name, but lowercase it as an apartheid and earlier politico-legal classification (especially since that included people from disparate actual ethnic groups). Do we need to make that change? WP:MOSBLOAT suggests "no": If we have gotten along fine for 20+ years without a rule, then we do not need that rule, and if we do not need it, we have an active need to not have it, because MoS is over-complicated and lengthy already. You might or might not have already known this, but I have been one of the principal shepherds of MoS for 18 years or so (which should explain why I've cared to go into this much analysis on a style question). The experience has taught me the heard way that a complex, hair-splitting rule tends to cause more trouble than it is worth. We have this problem, long term, with several matters of constant confusion and dispute, such as when to capitalize a job/office/role title, and when to use which kind of dash and how to space it, among several other perennial thorns in the collective side. Simplicity has its merits, even when it cannot please everyone on every matter. 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

PS: See also WT:Manual of Style#RfC: Gentilic form of Botswana as potentially of interest, though not directly related to this. PPS: Thanks for the SA govt. Editorial Style Guide. That one somehow had escaped my collection, and just in the first few pages it has proven useful for some unrelated purposes. (E.g. it is evidence against the oft-bandied-about claim that dotted abbreviations like "e.g." and "Prof." are Americanisms and that everyone else follows the alleged "British practice" of writing "eg" and "Prof" without the punctuation. I already knew that was nonsense, since even major British style guides that are not news-journalism ones do not advise that; but it's additional evidence to cite next time that comes up.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant what I said about not wanting to fight, but equally I want to respect the thoroughness of your response by giving you more detailed feedback than "okay".
Your first two paragraphs represent an extremely American perspective. Reality is close to the opposite in SA, the capital C is seen as racist (at least in the circles in which I have spent my life) because it's how all the apartheid regime's language referred to coloured people. For my part, I am going to spend the next few weeks asking around my social circles for other perspectives, to check that I didn't invent this and then start treating it as true at some point.
Before this conversation, my only awareness of its capitalized use (outside this outdated, racist sense) was in specific, very academic circles where things settled differently, and certainly not in any common or everyday usage.
I completely accept that this is probably a generational thing and that (as you say) younger people are picking up the American Black, White, etc. thing, but it is pretty clearly not a majority position yet (as you recognize).
Let me give you that list (with black "standing out") from an SA perspective: black, coloured, Indian/Asian, white. Our conundrum is not the present (or indeed the future) of American English, but of South African English.
(Or maybe my assumption is wrong here, and SA English is deserving of less respect than, for example, UK English on Wikipedia.)
"I doubt that lower-casing "Coloured" would go over well here" is perceptive and valid, as in, convincing a bunch of Americans of this cultural difference isn't worth the energy. The unspoken baseline seems to be "the US has cultural hegemony here on Wikipedia, you must accept our language norms", which I may not enjoy but is obviously a practical operating mode.
Paragraph three: I really appreciate the earnest and thorough source review. It exposed me to a lot more of the capitalization than I was aware of. You've effectively shifted my view from "lowercase c is correct" to "either is fine".
Four (the angles you identify): 1) and 2) are functionally the same thing, because the white immigrants were the ones inventing the categories. I think it is more accurate to think of 2) as those of 1) who were imbued with bureaucratic authority. You are quite far off on 2), the apartheid bureaucrats were really fond of capitalizing it as Coloured and did so in all of their screeds and laws and so on (and this is why it is offensive today, to my sensibilities). I disagree on 3) (given my life spent immersed in SA media) but recognize that the onus is on me to make that case and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.
Five is about what I expected. It is really wild for me to see you quote a rule that says that "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." and then defend leaving the rule "Coloured [...] is capitalized" as written, after looking at all the material you have in researching this. Maybe ENGVAR should say "Wikipedia does not prefer US English over UK English". That said, I do think your point about SA not being sufficiently consistent on the capitalization is valid (but it is evidence for an either/or, not a must-be-capitalized rule).
The source review towards the end of five, and in six: again, I respect the effort, and honestly can't really comment. Maybe the SA formal-literary and academic worlds are as you say (the n is a little on the low side, but I respect the limits of comprehensiveness for such a niche issue). My language exposure has been more everyday: news media, written text conversations, pulpy fiction books, business documents, and so on.
The single example of a racist using a lower-case c is not convincing.
South Africa is really inconsistent on -ise vs. -ize. Most style guides will say -ise, but my experience of used language leans more -ize, so I standardized my use to that. I am a devout descriptivist.
Not much to comment on in seven. Again, I respect the effort put in.
Eight: I happen to share that aesthetic preference (lowercasing where possible). The rest is preaching to the converted; I am also very sensitive to correct use of ethonyms and their social implications. Indeed it is the reason I brought this up to you (so I wouldn't have to type Coloured if I wanted to contribute to an article about SA).
Ascribing the inclination to lowercase ethonyms to them being everyday words and/or absorbed prescriptivism is deeply offensive. This is simply how we use these ethonyms in South Africa. Try to understand that your perspective on capitalizing ethonyms is American.
Nine: I tend to agree with you that simplicity and fewer words should generally be the compass for something like articulating a MOS. But I think it is disingenuous to frame the potential change as you have; in the relevant sentence

The term Coloured in reference to a specific ethnic group of Southern Africa is not a slur, and is capitalized; person/people of colo[u]r is not offensive, and not capitalized.

...I would simply change "and is capitalized" to "and may be capitalized", to match reality (as you found in your source review, there is a lot of lowercase c out there). A couple more sources for you: the Stellenbosch University English style guide, the University of Johannesburg English style guide.
I think your ABOUTSELF point is your strongest, but I wouldn't claim to be able to aggregate the sentiment of such a broad group of people with, frankly, inadequate representation in the kinds of media we have easy online access to for sourcing.
Finally, I want to give you some human perspective on what it feels like to engage in conversations like this. I very strongly respect everything you've done in terms of going to sources and trying to look at the state of reality, and the huge amount of time you must have committed in putting that reply together, but some of your perspectives (looking at very US-specific elements of your own experience of reality and applying them to everyone else, i.e. US defaultism) are incredibly depressing to try to, um, push back against.
I wrote a long analogy here to try to make it easier for you to empathize, but I decided that it didn't really work so I deleted it. I think that perhaps more generally, it is not possible to share the experience of being culturally erased with someone who has not experienced it themselves. I hope you never do (experience it).
As a specific MOS interpretation question, since it says

Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort [...]

...does this mean that we must also capitalise black and white when they appear next to "Coloured", as they often will in SA-adjacent articles? "Will be more appropriate" is awkward language and I'm not sure how much (if any) wiggle room it offers.
Even if I disagree with your conclusion, I do appreciate that you are well-intentioned and doing your best with the resources available to you, and acting in good faith, which is all anyone can do. Thanks for treating the question seriously and for the time you've committed to it. Emberfiend (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate your detail and depth (and tone). :-) At this point, I wouldn't call such matters literally an Americanism, though there is a good chance this one is an "un-South-Africanism" to some extent. That is, I see a trend (which seems to have started in the US) to capitalize terms like "Black" and "White" in an ethno-cultural sense (at least with regard to modern populations) and it is growing outside of the US. So, I think I come back to the "WP is written for English-users globally not for South African users of the language in particular" angle, at least as a default place from which to start. Since the usage patterns in SA don't form an overwhelmingly consistent pattern, there doesn't really seem to be a MOS:ENGVAR argument. But there could be something of a population WP:ABOUTSELF one to consider.

The possibility that capital-C Coloured has latterly come to be taken as offensive by persons to whom it might pertain (or to a large subset of them) is worth further investigation. I would not want to be in the position of insisting on something for consistency's sake if it was actually offensive to the subjects. (E.g., the fact that "Afro-Brazilian", "Afro-Cuban" and the like remain common usage, both in academic RS and in vernacular usage, doesn't mean that "Afro-American" should be imposed, when the persons to whom it refers have largely denigrated the term since the 1980s.)

I did think to use GScholar's ability to constrain results to a particular period, and limited it to the 1948–1994 apartheid span [38]. The results do show a bit more capitalization than in an unconstrained search with all results included. But it's not actually a very strong difference, especially if you look through 5 or so pages of results (and as with the original searching, discard false positives along with capitalization that only appears in titles but not body text; certain political terms-of-art from that era, like "the Coloured Vote" in a narrow sense, tend to always be capitalized, and I ruled them out as general evidence of capitalization in my original review above). This is kind of a difficult matter to assess more closely, in the absence of much RS material that's specifically focused on this term and its usage.

On the numbered (1, 2, 3) bits, I'm of course aware of the 1→2 relationship. But I was not trying to imply anything about apartheid-era bureaucratese; rather, I meant that independent RS rarely capitalize "coloured" as a legal/regulatory label, especially in modern publications. The capitalization pattern in recent sources seems to lean towards the usage as an ethno-cultural designation, especially for present-day groups.

Generational: I would think so, too. I was initially strongly resistant to "Black", "White", etc. (and to "Indigenous", "Aboriginal", "Native", etc., outside of a handful of constructions universally capitalized like "Native Americans" and "Aboriginal Australians"). Over time, I recognized that real-world usage was changing whether I liked it or not, and have re-approached with a different logic. Namely: is the term serving the function of a proper name, or simply descriptive? If the latter, as in "indigenous populations of the Eurasian steppe regions in the Bronze Age", or "native to the Gaeltacht areas of Ireland", then lowercase it. But "Black", "White", and "Coloured" as ethnic terms are not descriptions, but metaphoric/evocative names. (No one, even with OCA-2 albinism, is actually "white", but pale pinkish at most, and even the most melanin-heavy individuals on earth are dark brown not literally "black"). But all that logic would also have to give way to "This term is broadly taken as offensive by those to whom it refers" facts, if established.

"given my life spent immersed in SA media": I respect that (and it's part of why I've taken all this so seriously; if you were from Indiana or Hong Kong, I would have been far more skeptical that you had any basis for these concerns). I should be clear that I'm not trying to approach this from an "America knows best" angle (or an "SMcCandlish knows best" one). Just analyzing the available material I can find so far, and applying various logical arguments in the materials' interpretation. I've tried to include more than one such argument, even if one is more appealing to me. I should also mention that my edu. background is in cultural anthropology and linguistics, which makes me very much a relativist and descriptivist versus a prescriptivist about such matters (in simple terms, it results in conclusions like "the usage pattern looks like X, except in this area where it leans toward Y", versus "X is right, except in this dialect, where only Y is correct"). This approach can self-conflictingly produce general results that are more culturally sensitive than average but which turn out culturally less sensitive in a particular instance, especially if an advocacy position underlies perception in the latter case.

Re, "The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort": That would, yes, suggest "the Black, Coloured, Indian, and White population groups in the Cape Town Area", versus "black, Coloured, Indian, and white" or "black, coloured, Indian, and white". But if it becomes clear that all three of those labels (skipping "Indian", which is obviously a proper name no matter what) demonstrably have an offensiveness level to a significant number of South Africans, then it might be something to make an exception for in an MoS footnote. Regardless, "black, Coloured, Indian, and white" would surely be an PoV-undesirable result.

[A lengthy wiki-historical aside: This sort of disputation has most come up since the mid-2010s, again originating in American English usage but spreading much further since. It started up because an advocacy camp (which even some news publishers have joined, though the majority have not), including some editors here, wants to capitalize "Black" but lowercase "white", just to make a socio-political point, with results like "the Black, East Asian, Hispanic, Indic, Native American, Pacific, Semitic, and white demographics of New York", and of course this has not gone over well. The last big discussion of this (that I recall) is how we ended up with the current guideline to use either "Black and White" or "black and white" consistently within the same piece, and to use the capitalization for consistency if other such terms like "Asian" or whatever are in the same material. This seems to be a pretty stable compromise, so far. The two goofy arguments that are presented against "White" in particular are: A) That it's not really an ethnic categorization or discrete population; and B) that we don't want to lend ammo to white (or White) supremacists. Argument A is silly for a number of reasons, most obviously that Europeans, or western Eurasians since "White" often includes groups from west-central Asia, are closer inter-related to each other genetically and usually culturally than even some directly neighboring autochthonous ethnic groups in Africa, and also far less diverse than "Asian" (even in a sense exclusive of west-Asian "White" people) as a label, so if "African" and "Asian" are broad ethno-cultural or "racial" names, then necessarily so is "White"; and it could not be possible for "White people" (or "Caucasians" or "people of European descent") to have a problematic hegemony on assets and influence in the West and in areas of its historical colonialism if no such group could even be identified and named. Argument B is even more silly; if one were critical of "fundamentalist Islamist terrorist activity", or "pro-Franco political violence in dictatorial Spain", or for that matter "the Nazi party in mid-20th-century Germany", one would not write these things as "islamist", "pro-franco", or "nazi" simply to denigrate them, no matter how valid the criticisms might be. People on Wikipedia have to get away from the idea of abusing capitalization (or stand-out lowercasing) as a "signifier" (and mostly have, because of the guideline linked there, though we have a few holdouts who frequently are tendentious at WP:RM discussions).]

Not sure where to go from here. It seems reasonable to suppose that some linguistics, political science, sociology and other journals and books will have included articles/chapters on use of the term "[c|C]oloured" in South Africa and its perceptions over time, probably also inclusive of some capitalization analysis; and that if significant numbers of people in SA care about this typography that advocacy pieces and more journalism-level material on the question should exist somewhere. Regardless what such material if/when found and given WP:DUE analsysis might tell us, 'simply change "and is capitalized" to "and may be capitalized"' would not work, because it sets up a choice with no reasons provided, which means people would simply fight over it emotively per their personal PoV without anything to shortcircuit that squabbling (something else we've learned over time about MoS and how it gets written). We'd need a rationale given, even if just in a footnote, that could be relied upon to decide and to end or forestall "style-war" disputation.

In closing, I should mention that while I'm an American citizen, I learned to read and write in England and spent formative years there, and have also lived in Canada. I'm not prescribing an American viewpoint (though I'm likely to have been influenced by one, since I've lived in Yankeelandia longer than elsewhere). Your concern that WP writing primarily revolves around US vs. UK English style choices is valid; things lean this direction simply because of the editorial and reader demographics. My engagement in this in such depth is out of concern that we really could be making a mistake here. (Plus I'm also full of coffee, can type very fast, and have near-endless patience for sociolinguistics.) Nevertheless, my "capitalize, as proper names, terms that are used as names for and by ethno-cultural groups" logic is self-contained and based on MOS:PN; if in this case it happens to agree with more American publishers' output, that's entirely incidental (correlation not causation). I reality, I read more British than American non-fiction, due to my research interests.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I digested it all but I'm out of bandwidth for more meaningful replies. I think I'll just avoid SA articles so I don't have to deal with this rule. Again, I appreciate your time, I learned a lot. Emberfiend (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March music

[edit]
story · music · places

New month: today is the birthday of Chopin and Ricardo Kanji, see my stories of today and yesterday, with dream music by the first and Bach played by the other. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&oldid=1278255828"