User talk:JMF/Archive 5

ASCII short description
Hi JMF, I see you've reverted my edit to ASCII's short description in which I changed it from "American character encoding standard" to just "Character encoding standard". While the "A" in ASCII does stand for "American", I don't believe that's enough to justify including "American" in the shortdesc. Since the standard is used all over the world, describing it specifically as "American" might confuse people more than help them. Also, the lead sentence of the article reads "ASCII [...] is a character encoding standard for electronic communication", do you believe that should also be changed to say "American character encoding standard"? AVDLCZ (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * but fundamentally, it is an American standard, not an international standard. The fact that it was adopted by other countries doesn't make it any less an American standard. The major source cited in the article,, specifically mentions [p 238] concurrent European (ECMA) and British (BS) standards being developed concurrently and the work that was done between standards bodies to align their code choices as far as possible, while reserving certain code positions for national use. In the ASCII standard, these are assigned to the American choices (which is why, to take the simplest case, it has a number sign # rather than a pound sign £). ASCII is the American national variant of ISO/IEC 646, it is an American standard. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to change the lead sentence: ASCII is a character encoding standard for electronic communication. Just not the only one of its time. Of course the question is moot (in the en-US sense) since ASCII is technically obsolete, having been replaced by Unicode. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for John Ogilby
Vaticidalprophet 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Physical attraction
Hi JMF i made some changes to a wiki page physical attraction would u like to discuss it? Wikiedit4444444 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Not here. Any discussion needs to be at talk:Physical attractiveness so that others can contribute. But as I said at your talk page, it is always more productive to propose such changes at the talk page first. I don't have time to engage right now, hopefully tomorrow. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

John Ogilby

 * all looking good (but depressingly extensive). Just one item caught my attention: you changed a well-to-do gentleman's tailor in Edinburgh to a rich gentleman's tailor in Edinburgh, which is of course valid since "well-to-do" is an en-uk colloquialism. But it highlighted an ambigiuity: neither version distinguishes between "a [rich gentleman's] tailor" v. "a rich [gentleman's tailor]". I meant the latter of course (though both would have had to be true). Is there a better way to write it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries; thanks for asking; yes, "well-to-do" is colloquial and I noticed the ambiguity in that phrase. We could say "a rich tailor to gentlemen"; or if the former were meant, "a tailor to rich gentlemen". I thought it might be self-explanatory though; since a gentleman in historical contexts (unless used ironically) is a man of high social status (but not necessarily rich). Let me know what you think. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  01:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now finished the c/e, though I haven't fixed the issue above. In "Literary reputation", I've tagged "recently" (1st para) with when (when did this start?) and I noticed "arguably" in the third para; I think this is explained by the footnote but it seem to me like an expression of uncertainty. Anyway, good luck with the article. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this thorough going over. The article looks quite a bit better now.
 * I'm still struggling with the word "rich" because the citations don't support that and he certainly wasn't rich compared to his customers. The concept of "middle class" didn't exist then but if it did, he would have been classes as "comfortably-off middle class" by modern standards. So I will have to find a better word. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries; it's a difficult one... I'd suggest "relatively wealthy", or maybe "of middle income" or something similar? He's an interesting subject anyway. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  19:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Brexit and the Irish border
Hello,

I've seen you reverted my edit on the page "Brexit and the Irish border", stating that "the UK/France border is a sea border." I do completely agree with you that this precision adds little relevance to the page, which isn't centered around all the borders of the UK and the EU. But, the UK/France border isn't just a sea border. The Treaty of Canterbury drew the land border in the Chunnel.

I'm not going to revert your own revert because, first, that would be disrespectful and uncollaborative, and secondly, because I'm not a major contributor to the English Wikipedia (I'm more active on the French Wikipedia). However, the page right now is incorrect in stating the Irish/UK border is the only land border between the UK and the EU Cosmiaou (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for that consideration. I must continue to disagree because I believe that you have confused two closely-related ideas: a 'dry' border crossing v a 'land' crossing.
 * Yes, technically you are correct but only because the line between England and France is logically three-dimensional, not just two: it also extends vertically from the mantle to the stratosphere. The jurisdiction (and law enforcement) of each country extends to that line but the frontier infrastructure is on land on either side: French frontier controls are physically at Dover, Folkestone, Newhaven and Portsmouth; their British counterparts are at Calais, Sangatte, Dieppe and Caen.
 * A similar arrangement arises at the Denmark/Sweden border, which is also a sea border. The construction of the Øresund Bridge didn't change it to a land border simply because it provides a dry crossing. Whether the sea is crossed by a bridge, a tunnel or a ferry is not significant.
 * The border in Ireland is qualitatively different: it is like the border between adjacent Départements in France. It has little or no significant topological differentiation. It is 500km long, crossed by over 270 public roads and who knows how many footpaths and farm tracks. The road between two county towns in the Republic, Cavan and Monaghan, changes its designation repeatedly from N54 road (Ireland) to A3 road (Northern Ireland) and back again because the border meanders back and over. In one famous case, a house has its front door in one jurisdiction and its back door in the other. Now that is a land border.
 * Does that explanation satisfy you? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Other UK borders
Ever since Brexit, I keep hearing that the border in the English Channel is the only line separating Great Britain from the European Union. This may be quite beside the point of the 𝕁𝕄𝔽/Cosmiaou debate, but it provides me with the opportunity, at last, to ask "what about the border between Gibraltar and Spain?" Hasn't Gibraltar been part of Great Britain since the Treaty of Utrecht over two hundred years ago? And isn't Spain part of the European Union?

There, I asked the question! I will sleep more soundly tonight. Peter Brown (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter. The Anglo-French border gets all the attention but of course there is also a sea border with Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Ireland (wrt GB). See the EEZ map for details (Gibraltar does not have an EEZ). Yes, like the five I already mentioned, Spain is an EU member but doesn't have border with the UK as such. Norway and Iceland –  which also feature on the map –  are not, they are members of EFTA.
 * Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, not part of the UK. Like the American Colonies (which weren't part of the Kingdom of Great Britain either), just another trophy on the wall. ;-^
 * Terminology: in 1707, England and Scotland merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1801, Great Britain and Ireland merged to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1921, about 80% of Ireland seceded, and the UK became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In modern usage, the term "Great Britain" just refers to the island. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead section of the Gibraltar article needs clarification, then. It says "The territory was ceded to Great Britain in perpetuity under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713." Though cession is not the same as incorporation, the typical reader may not be aware or the distinction. I certainly haven't been.
 * Peter Brown (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is explained in the British Overseas Territory article. The lead of the Puerto Rico article doesn't say that it is not part of the US: that information is in unincorporated territory. "Lead overload" is always a problem. (But compare overseas departments of France). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Specialist words
Of course "specialist words exist for a reason", but the point is very simply that what you yourself describe as "specialist words" are unlikely to be helpful to people who are not specialists. I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of native speakers of English wouldn't have a clue what "voiced palatal approximant" means, but would realise that "y sound" refers to the one sound in English which is specific to the letter y, not one which is usually represented by another letter, and in a small minority of cases by y. The point is to use language in the way which is most effective in communicating the intended meaning to the target audience, not to use a form which is "correct" in some pedantic sense unrelated to effectiveness of communication. However, if you really do object to "y sound" because it could conceivably mean the wrong phoneme, then wouldn't it be more constructive to disambiguate it, rather than remove the potentially useful information altogether? JBW (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with the principle of what you say.
 * But it also important to be accurate: if we say that it is symbol used by IPA for a particular usage, then we should use the IPA terminology, not a WP:EGG.
 * For both these reasons together, I consider the revised version to be what we need. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think the way I first did it wasn't the best; I merely reverted a change I had seen from some time ago, without considering whether a third way would be better than either. Your comments prompted think about what was best, as I should have done at first. JBW (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Club news

 * Feel free to add to your user page if you like, or  if you are averse to userboxen. JBW (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, intrigued, now that you have put the question into my head, I decided to investigate. I set up a spreadsheet which creates TLAs (again, not TlAs etc) at random, and got it to give me 50 of them. Of those 50, 8 of them are usernames for accounts which exist but have never edited, and 8 are usernames of accounts which have edited. If that random sample of 50 is representative, there will be about 2800 users who have edited and who qualify for club membership. However, it may be difficult to actually recruit many members, because only one of those that I found has edited in the last 5 years. If that rate of 1 in 50 is typical, there will be about 350 of us altogether, though obviously that estimate will be highly unreliable from such a small sample. Hmm. Perhaps you are wondering if I have nothing better to do with my time. Well... Hmm. Maybe... JBW (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, the one TLA editor with recent edits that I found is HLT. JBW (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank for the TLA box, I shall make an exception to my general rule.
 * I will invite HLT. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * By the way, I sort of assumed you would realise, and maybe you did, but in case you didn't, the userbox automatically adds the user page to Category:Wikipedian TLA club. JBW (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had noticed. BTW, I invited HLT and TSP. Neither responded but I expressed the invitation such that only acceptance would require a reply. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have notifications disabled, you will see that I have invited FNQ, but I thought I would let you know just to be sure. JBW (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * + JPD. JBW (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

IP editor on HS2 Talk
Hi - thanks for your reasoned comments on Talk:High Speed 2. The argumentative anonymous IP editor is quite tiresome and seems to be as much concerned with attention-seeking as actual content. I am now going to try not to reply to their endless contradictions in an effort not to feed the trolls. Interestingly, some of their various IP addresses can be geolocated to Hammersmith, West London. A couple of years ago we had some disruptive and abusive behaviour on the HS2 article, centred on a fixation with declaring Liverpool as an HS2 station; these were from a series of anonymous edits from a IP addresses also located in Hammersmith (logged here and here). I cannot be certain, but I suspect strongly this is the same problematic editor returning to cause trouble. They seem to have toned down the incivility, so it can't be seen as anything more than a content dispute, but I just thought I'd mention it, as it's one to beware of! Cnbrb (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I guessed as much. In fact this morning I re-read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. So I think you are right: no further engagement at the talk page and edits to the article that do not have consensus get reverted. I doubt that an WP:RFPP would be effective unless it was for a year or more but we may have to go through the escalation phases by the book. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON and WP:ICANTHEARYOU - spot on, thank you. I knew these pages existed, I just couldn't remember what they were called. Cnbrb (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * well, as predicted, he's back. On the talk page, we can just ignore his remarks but his contra-consensus edits to the live article are more of a problem. If it puts us into 3RR territory, we will have to do another RfPP. Which is really annoying because it blocks all IP editor contributions, good or bad. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So I see. Our West London Correspondent can safely be ignored - he has nothing to contribute except insults. I'm uncertain about the other IP - seems to be North London, but I wonder it's the same person? The tone of comments is similar. Personally I'm really quite happy for IP editors to be blocked from editing. Cnbrb (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Pythagoras
Hi, it strikes me I may have been a bit snippy with you about the sources and further reading there, so my apologies for that. I also should have explained that one of the reasons for separating out Sources and Further reading as I did is that it makes it easier for editors with a better knowledge of the literature, like you, to trim away any excess, which is of course what you were trying to do. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries. I was editing on mobile and got false positives from harv.js. I suspect that, had the situation been reversed, I'd have done exactly what you did. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Blackpool article
Greetings - I noted you likely are much more of a stakeholder in the Blackpool article - I did make many bold and strident changes - and I documented them as such in the audit trail of the edits - I do apologize - all edits made in good faith.

Sadly, the reversion by @DragonofBatley deleted other more conservative edits - the sizing of the images is the most notably visual loss of quality by these wholesale resets.

As with most matters there is always a civil middle ground and sure - I have no interest in edit wars and I was crystal clear that I did think my edits - pushed the 'consensus boundaries' - but no one reacted negatively - until this day. There are section in the articles talk section and there was arguably some degree of consensus.

I usually only focus on medical and science articles and there is less room for bombast and group think in such articles -

I did actually think the changes others made - size of images - should be reverted - but I am not getting directly involved.

Kind Regards, Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am not a stakeholder, I know nothing about Blackpool. As no doubt you have seen, I have reversed the brute force reversion, simply because it was contrary to Wikipedia principles as I explained at the talk page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Junk currency
Thank you for participating in the editing. We would like to inform you that due to various circumstances, our username has been changed from Wikidate47 to LendingWiki. Now, regarding the statement that the Japanese yen has become a junk currency, we have revived it since it was reported in the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. Thank you for your correction.LendingWiki (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * More work will be needed on it, to comply with WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should be a summary of body content. It certainly should be mentioned in the lead now but only in one sentence. The new detail you added will need to be moved down to a new section in the body. I will do that. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I have done that transfer: there is now a short sentence in the lead and the section on exchange rates has been expanded. (Another policy we have is that wp:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we tend to avoid covering current affairs in detail. It is better to let time pass and then look back to see whether something that seemed very important at the time actually ever turned out to be of historical significance.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing what you have done, that this compilation has been important amidst the many changes that have taken place since the June 2023 compilation. LendingWiki (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Information sign for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information sign, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Information sign until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a reminder
One needn't any special powers to see the future from an already recorded and well-documented point in history. In this case, that point seems to be the night of March 2, 1984. On some level, most of us know we saw the scene some time later (or not at all), though the implication is there. It's almost constantly relative, man, all this before and after jazz. But yeah, sometimes "subsequent', though the longer word, is the better word. A fine choice, kudos. I hope you won't mind me changing the "past" to best fit what you've done here and trust you'll still have a nice day! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * a role for the Future perfect? Yes, I like "Prior examples". Kudos returned. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not about to suggest the Newfoundland English. Those poor people. Anyway, glad you're cool with the way things went. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting article! I learned an entirely new (to me) verb tense, Habitual aspect. Tyvm. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Harry the house"
Hi,

I noticed you'd reverted a couple of edits by DuncanHill at "Claydon House" where he had reverted the changes made by an IP editor. The IP editor is a blocked user known as "Harry the house" (see the SPI archive here) and is very prolific. I'd like to try to coordinate a response to his activity. Would you mind joining the discussion here?

Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , I consciously did not actually revert 's edit since I inferred that it was a WP:BMB "revert all edits good or bad". So I agree completely that Duncan's reversion was valid. However, the National Trust article is called just that, so it was reasonable to correct a redundant link to a redirect article, and BMB says as much. Which is pretty much the conclusion you reached at SPI. But I will keep a weather eye out for HtH's "fist" in other articles I watch. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and apologies for misdescribing your actions. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No need whatever to apologise. It wasn't obvious. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced edits
I posted about the issue you raised on WP:RFPPI over. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What does “Unable to fetch Parsoid HTML” mean?
I got it whilst editing 90.241.131.86 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * no idea, I've never seen it. Ask at the Teahouse. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Poots' v Poots's
Hiya. While I don't understand the comment about Potatoes (as, other than your own, no edit recently placed an apostrophe between the "t" and "s"), I would simply note that (following your most recent edit) this sentence is now one of the few places in the article/sources/etc where  is used. Elsewhere in the body we have "Poots' supporters", "Poots' instruction", etc. And in the sources we find "Poots' suspension" (BBC), "Poots' decision" (Belfast Newsletter), ""Poots' comments misplaced, sexist and outdated" (Irish News). While I'm not interested in warring about it, I would note that (a) what we have now is at least inconsistent (within the body text and with the sources) and (b) your initial revert of MongogramForCandy's edit actually reintroduced (rather than solved) a "Potato's" problem. Restoring "One of Edwin Poot's sons". An accident undoubtedly. But be careful tossing stones from inside a glasshouse eh? :) Guliolopez (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * see Greengrocer's apostrophe. (tbf, "Potato's" is probably not a good example, since it is legit'te to use an apostrophe to signify abbreviation by omission of letters). I won't [sic] pursue it. Language changes. (I've been reading a lot of C17 writing recently while working on Robert Hooke, so I guess I've become hypersensitised to spelling that would make Nigel Molesworth blush.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Plural in "Foot (unit)".The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert Hooke
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Hooke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert Hooke
The article Robert Hooke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Hooke for comments about the article, and Talk:Robert Hooke/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Tittles
Not a very important question, but the key problem here are the words "in English". We are both aware that the classification as "diacritic" is language-sensitive. Tittles are not regarded as diacritics in the English alphabet, since they don't alter the base form, but they are very much diacritics in the Turkish alphabet thanks to the opposition between I and İ.

Anyway this should'nt alter the validity of my edit. The sentence in question basically says: "Of all the diacritics in the world, these ones are sometimes used in English". What you did is narrowing down the broad category "diacritics" (which globally speaking very much includes tittles) preemptively to how it's understood in a specific language alphabet, which doesn't make sense in the context, because the entire article is dedicated to the specifities of that particular language.

I also include, since they reverted me. Cheers, Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We agree so far.
 * And now I don't understand! We agree his article is particular to English words, and that includes particular conventions—that would probably never include tittles being diacritics simply because our ingrained notion of the letter ⟨I⟩ is too particular (that's my guess, anyway). If we have a Turkish loanword in English, we may import a ⟨Ü⟩, but I doubt we would import the ⟨İ⟩. It's like saying
 * unless I'm missing something. Remsense  诉  15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's not an analogous example. We need a sentence making use of a very broad category, but using the term in an idiosyncratic form. Consider: "There are 2 football stadiums in Los Angeles", with the intended context-sensitive reading of football as American football, but instead using the broad umbrella term used for a multitude of very different sports. But here ends the analogy. The link football can easily be redirected to the correct article, clearing any possible misunderstanding, while - in our case - unfortunately there is no appropriate link, since diacritic correctly lists tittles as example for diacritics... Anyway, the chances for confusion for our readers are minimal here, I'm aware of that :-) Cheers, Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers! This may be solved for the better by specifying the relative nature of writing systems on the Tittle page, methinks. Remsense  诉  16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * well I'm pleased that you guys have cleared that up while I was otherwise engaged. I'm not sure how you got there but "all's well that ends well". As for an analogy, how about Æ? In English and French, it is a ligature of A and E; in the Nordic languages, it is a distinct letter in its own right. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until you hear about the actual madness I've coincidentally been in trying to decide whether an there should merit an article for—basically, morphology for grammatology? There's work on it, but I have no idea if there's a common name. "Smallest functional written unit" almost doesn't break down as a definition for grapheme if you don't wander too far from the banks of the Rhine, but everyone goes quiet the moment they have to consider what on Earth is meant to be doing. Of course, there's Chinese character classification, but alphabetic grammatology seems to have little interest in bridging the gap, so to speak.  Remsense  诉  17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers! This may be solved for the better by specifying the relative nature of writing systems on the Tittle page, methinks. Remsense  诉  16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * well I'm pleased that you guys have cleared that up while I was otherwise engaged. I'm not sure how you got there but "all's well that ends well". As for an analogy, how about Æ? In English and French, it is a ligature of A and E; in the Nordic languages, it is a distinct letter in its own right. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until you hear about the actual madness I've coincidentally been in trying to decide whether an there should merit an article for—basically, morphology for grammatology? There's work on it, but I have no idea if there's a common name. "Smallest functional written unit" almost doesn't break down as a definition for grapheme if you don't wander too far from the banks of the Rhine, but everyone goes quiet the moment they have to consider what on Earth is meant to be doing. Of course, there's Chinese character classification, but alphabetic grammatology seems to have little interest in bridging the gap, so to speak.  Remsense  诉  17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox demographic statistics
Hi. Thought I'd offer further points for your consideration here rather than monopolising the template talk discussion. If I understand correctly, your view is that no demographic statistics should be included in infoboxes because of undue prominence, so I take it you would favour their removal from Template:Infobox UK place too. That's a big change to longstanding inclusion of demographic statistics in the infoboxes be they ethnicity or otherwise. The difference between Template:Infobox English county and UK place template is that UK Place doesn't specify a particular statistic field and it is left to editors of a particular article to decide what's included. Template counties on the other hand specifies ethnicity as the sole field, wrongly I would say. So what to do? My preference is for the following changes to the county template. a) remove ethnicity b) add two optional undefined statistical fields under both the non-metropolitan county and unitary authority sections as with UK place infobox c) let editors seek consensus on individual counties for optional statistical fields. As things stand this would remove all the ethnicity figures, but give an option to include up to two fields, which may make it easier to achieve consensus. We shouldn't assume negative connotations for ethnicity's prominence. Census ethnicity data can be utilised as a positive indication of welcomed diversity. My concern is not about the inclusion of a specific demographic but that the figures for those shown are correctly based on the latest census. Many at present are not and even worse have no source alongside. For these I agree with what you did with Beds and Bucks, i.e. blanking them, though I saw no obligation to undertake up-to-date calculations given the figures are not published for those entities and was somewhat surprised you undertook this. Rupples (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. First, I assume you realised that population is a given, that I was talking about the other metrics.
 * Yes, my main bugbear is that ethnicity is effectively mandatory. In UK PLACE articles, the facility is there for local consensus, which I think can probably work at such a very local level. I'm less sure that it work at county level but its not a show stopper and I won't argue about it lest it distract from my major point. So yes, I agree with your ABC: can you try to get consensus around them?
 * On the Beds and Bucks infoboxes, I felt I had a duty to hold to the status quo first and have the debate from there because it is a general problem. But I very nearly didn't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll see what I can do. It probably requires an invitation to the discussion placed on each county's talk page and as Keith D suggests on related wikiprojects, plus a slightly differently worded explanation and rationale. The one task I'm reticent to do is the actual change to the template, if agreed, as it affects many articles and I'm not confident of getting it right. Rupples (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Conventionally, the notice goes on the template talk page and associated project pages. I've been an editor for a very long time and never yet seen a notice in talk pages of articles that invoke that template. I've notified wpukgeo and wpengland. Is there another one with even a marginal interest?
 * As for making the actual change, once the principle has consensus, getting help to make it happen is not too difficult. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting dont you think 71.208.58.96 (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. I've placed a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Berkshire. You may want to take a look. May have to amend the wording for other county projects, but wanted to get your general OK/advice. Hopefully, we'll get more input and a wider consensus to the proposed change. I think notifying the county projects is what Keith is recommending. Rupples (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ah ok. The Bucks one has been dormant for so long that I had forgotten about the county WikiProjects. Yes, we will have to replicate your notice to the others, dormant or not. I will do some this pm. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi JMF. For some reason, I didn't get a notification for your comment that mentions "lizardmen overlords and their human slaves"; I don't understand the comment, but no need to elaborate. I feel I've contributed more than enough to the Template Talk discussion already and don't propose to make any further points, other than respond if directly addressed. A long back and forth may deter other editors from contributing and I'd like to hear fresh voices. The number of responses so far is disappointing, but it's early days. I wonder if many active editors have the wikiprojects on watchlists? One of the reasons for the additional optional statistical infobox fields is that if we offered them it would help deflate any blowback from editors or readers after the ethnicity stats disappear. Of course, fears of a blowback may turn out to be unfounded. I don't immediately foresee much use being made of the optional fields; they wouldn't show in the article infoboxes and would be undefined in the template, unlike maybe a tendency to add data for defined fields from a sense of obligation to fill empty boxes — might be wrong though. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) amended Rupples (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's let it run for a bit. I suspect we'll end up with needing to do an RFC proposing (a) no change (b) two open-ended options (c) remove it.
 * I am reminded of the infobox UK place v infobox settlement debate. One obvious difference is that UK place does not have a race or ethnicity option (but Settlement does).
 * I am certain that your surmise is correct: evident or not, there will be at least one editor who feels compelled to find them and "complete" the infobox. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't be changing the template based on the amount of contributions to the discussion so far, but given your "length of service" and experience on here, you can doubtless judge this better than I. One thing I'm minded to do as a test case is to remove at least one county's misleading or out of date stats, not replace and open a discussion on the county talk page with explanation and a link to the Template discussion. It may help gauge what interest there is and if reverted, how strong. What do you think? Rupples (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said in the discussion: the infobox is a wp:LEAD in tabular form and should have the same economy of content. Every county article has the population in the lead: none breaks it down further. It is just clutter.
 * In my experience, it appears that one of three things will happen: (a) the discussion just peters out and nothing changes (b) there is an immediate and clear consensus for change (c) a slow start, more editors pitch in, various compromise options get thrown in the mix and eventually it goes to full RFC. I think we are at version c, so let it simmer for a few more days. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library Request... support if you so wish
Hi,

Sorry for using your talk page, but I couldn't think of a better way to access you. You have shown an interest in British (Country House) Architectural History. I have suggested that Wikipedians gain access to the Country Life Archive on The Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/). Please feel free to support this suggestion (titled "Country Life Archive (Proquest)" on the above page) if you think this is a good idea.

Feel free to @ me here with any questions.

Cheers, EPEAviator (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Ursula von der Leyen
The relevant quote in the sections source was:

... But at this point I'd accept if that was factually wrong reporting as well. Pinging you just because, well, the assertion is sourced, at least. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First, the article is about UvdL, not about the EPP. So unless she explicitly endorses that statement, it is irrelevant to her bio.
 * Second, it doesn't matter what the EPP policy is, since the Commission is not a government.
 * Second, it doesn't matter what the EPP policy is, since the Commission is not a government.


 * Not that it matters given that it is irrelevant, but where is it sourced? Even if it is true that the plan to outsource asylum applications, I would be astonished if they would cite the British government's illegal Rwanda proposal as an exemplar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The source was this euronews article (that the section is referenced with). Not that you should bother with it overly. It was obviously the author of the article's writing. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, here it is, though it is the Euronews reporter that says "based on the UK-devised ‘Rwanda model’", not (at least explicitly) the EPP. She might have said "Italy's Albania model" or "Australia's Nauru model" but that wouldn't get the volume of clicks. 1925 revisited... sigh (sorry, Goodwin's Law violation). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Unicode hyphen
You objected to the phrase "various types of hyphen including the unambiguous Unicode hyphen at U+2010" claiming that"there is no such thing formally as a 'Unicode hyphen', any more than there a 'Unicode minus' or indeed a 'Unicode plus'; these are commonly used forms of disambiguation so let's be consistent in our usages."Where is the inconsistency? "Unicode hyphen" is totally unambiguous, unlike your use of the term "formally". "Unicode hyphen" is used in the "name=" parameter of the infobox of the Hyphen article as well as in the lead of that article. Can you suggest a better term? Not "hyphen", surely, as that's wildly ambiguous. Peter Brown (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it "unicode hyphen" a confection of Wikipedia's making. The name of the glyph is "hyphen", not ifs, no buts, no qualification. Unlike "hyphen-minus" in ASCII. Unlike all the other qualified hyphens and dashes. No, I can't indulge in OR to invent a term nor do I see any need for one: my aim in rewriting that bit of hyphen-minus to that it says
 * "The current Unicode Standard specifies distinct characters for several different dashes, an unambiguous minus sign (sometimes called the Unicode minus) at code point U+2212, an unambigious hyphen (sometimes called the Unicode hyphen) at U+2010, the hyphen-minus at U+002D and a variety of other hyphen symbols for various uses."
 * is to formally introduce our jargon explicitly and consistently across each of the three cases. Having done so, we can write "unicode hyphen" thereafter with a clear conscience. Otherwise it would be wildly ambiguous of course. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think that the phrases "Unicode hyphen" and "Unicode minus") are unambiguous as they stand. Googling, I find discussion of the "unicode hyphen" (with a lower-case "u") here but I have to admit that it's rare. Do you think that we should edit the Hyphen article somehow to clarify or eliminate the phrase?  I don't see any harm in leaving it alone.


 * The statement at that −' redirects here" is ambiguous, unnecessary, and potentially misleading; I suggest that it be deleted.  Peter Brown (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I have no objection in principle to the term "unicode hyphen", "unicode minus" or even "unicode plus" [Caps or otherwise].. My concern is that we must introduce them before we use them because the distinction will not be obvious to many readers and the adjective unfamiliar. Yes, they are unambiguous to you and me but we are a minority.
 * I'll have a look at Hyphen tomorrow: if it uses the phrase "unicode hyphen" without an introduction, then it is frightfully rude, old chap [as Lady Bridgerton probably didn't say].
 * Yes, per the spirit of WP:NOTAMBIG: what else would it be? Off with its head. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Clicking "Random Article" calls up Carex tsaratananensis. The lead says that it is a is a tussock-forming species of perennial sedge in the family Cyperaceae. Without further research, I don't know what tussocks are or what sedge is, or whether Cyperacae is a family of plants, of animals, of slime molds, or of something else.  Surely, though, the article's creator could use these terms without explaining them!  The same goes for "unicode". Peter Brown (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are standard English words easily found in a dictionary (though I would wlink sedge): "unicode hyphen" is a confection of our making, so we are obliged to introduce it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment (to JMF); I just "thanked" your removal of some long list of Unicode symbols at tilde, and I was going to make a comment about it. But looking at the discussion above, hmm. Well, actually "Unicode hyphen" is a solecism. There is no such thing as a particular hyphen which is of the Unicode variety - there is only a Unicode encoding (or multiple encodings) of a hyphen. Mustn't ramble. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Hooke
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Jahor12345
Turns out your suspicions were correct. I noticed a pattern of edits to British currency in the Middle East by a range of IP addresses as well. So I reported both to SPI to be safe. Jahor12345 is a sock of TheCurrencyGuy.

Now I am trying to untangle the web a little. I have started a discussion at WikiProject Numismatics if you wanted to join. Thanks for your help. Regards, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just block-reverted the lot. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The IP server who was blocked yesterday for editing at "British currency in the Middle East" is not the editor called TheCurrencyGuy, doesn't know who he is, and has never interacted with him. Please double check the style of the edits. The IP server who you blocked yesterday also happens to have an interest in currency history and was trying to improve some articles. The in-line sourcing was yet to come, but the editor at the IP server hasn't yet figured out how to format the references. But much of the material and dates came from "All Monies of the World" by Franz Pick & Rene Sedillot, "Dictionary of the World's Currencies and Foreign Exchange", WF Spalding, and "Standard Catalog of World Coins", Krause, Mishier, and Bruce. 77.99.242.50 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The article had become a complete mess, structurally as well as the many uncited assertions, contrary to policy WP:no original research. At least some of the content was added by a sock puppet of TCG. Please ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics to have the desired changes done p There is already a discussion open on this topic or you can start a new one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)roperly.
 * I'm speaking on the directions of the editor whose IP server has been blocked, and who is definitely not TheCurrencyGuy. If the IP range is unblocked then you can discuss the matter with that editor directly, and you can point out the edits that you thought were problematic. The editor was about to mention that in 1928, it was still the Hejaz and the Nejd when that silver riyal was introduced, and that Saudi Arabia didn't come into existence until 1932. But the main point is, that this editor is definitely not TheCurrencyGuy. Not a single edit from that IP range was done by TheCurrencyGuy. The editor has got nothing to do with TheCurrencyGuy and doesn't know who TheCurrencyGuy is. For start, take a look at the talk page on "British currency in the Middle East". The sources were coming, and there was more to come. It just required some help to get them formatted correctly. 77.99.242.50 (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the contributor chooses to create an account, then the IP range block does not apply – see Why create an account?. Among the other benefits, a personal sign-on will also give them a test page (called the sandbox) where they can chop and change the text at will, until they have a version that is ready to go live. They don't need to (indeed probably should not) use their real name –  I don't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Winslow station
You have reverted my amendment in regard to amended the station had 2 platforms instead of one. I will state that the station was on double track and my amendment stands that it had two platforms. Steamybrian2 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought you were jumping the gun to the new station but even so, the 1952 OS map and the picture in the article suggest otherwise. Do you have a source that says it had two? if so, reduction to one would be a "significant date" that should be listed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The website - Disused Stations: Winslow Station (disused-stations.org.uk) has good photographs of the station showing both platforms. I have added this website as a reference in the history box of the wikipedia article. The photograph illustrated in the wikipedia article shows only one platform because it was taken from a train on the other track with the other platform hidden. When in passenger use the line was double track and was singled many years after the passenger service finished which the aforementioned "Disused Stations" article mentions. I have no reference to a 1952 OS map but a 1930 OS map in my collection shows similar symbols for double or single track for which you may have misread. Steamybrian2 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great work. It is also shown more clearly on this 1880 map (1:2500 "25 inch" scale).--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence that the IP server that was blocked was not a sockpupet of Jahor12345 or TheCurrencyGuy
The IP server that was blocked at the same time as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jahor12345 is not connected. Both were editing simultaneously on different articles during the morning of 3rd April 2024.The IP server began with detailed edits about the Egyptian pound, and then around noon, switched over to British currency in the Middle East. Meanwhile, editor Jahor12345 was editing across a wide range of currency topics, mainly reformatting. The editing styles are completely different. The IP server carried out edits at 1204hrs and 1206hrs, while Jahor12345 carried out an edit in the middle of that two minute period at 1205hrs. They couldn't possibly be the same person.81.134.217.27 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It was not I who blocked that IP range, indeed it could be a coincidence, that the cause was concurrent abuse by another IP on the same network.
 * Again, if the contributor creates an account, the version that they were working on can be copied to their sandbox. They can finish it there, then ask for it to be reviewed and made live when ok. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Yen
Hello. We would like to inform you that for various reasons our user name has changed to LendingNext. Now, in this edition of the Japanese yen page, we have included real effective exchange rate figures from 1970 to 2024, so that they can be compared with the nominal effective exchange rate. We apologise for the inconvenience.LendingNext (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)