User talk:Martijn Hoekstra/Archives/2015/January

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yishun Town Secondary School
Hi, the above is being attacked for the 250th!!! time - can you protect? Regards Denisarona (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Denisarona. I have no idea what this thing is about, so I'll have to investigate. To stop the current vandalism I've blocked both IP's who were at it today for a month. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This article has a long history of being attacked, protected, then attacked again when the protection expires. I think the students are probably responsible. Again, thanks Denisarona (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous protection was June-July 2014, and after then it seemed to be quiet for a good bit. If vandalism resumes, protection is a good bet I guess (I will be around for half an hour then unavailable for a few hours. Feel free to grab any admin you, or to escalate to WP:AN/I for hopefully fairly speedy resolution). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm gone for now, and I'm not comfortable doing admin things on my phone, so if it continues, I'm not really available for a couple of hours. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies
I am a marginally active reader and commenter at wikipediocracy, and have gotten to used to seeing Brad be criticized in any number of silly ways over there. Regrettably, it seems to me that I have probably carried over my biases from there back over to here. My apologies. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It happens, don't worry about it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo talk
You may wish to change

By following the recommended descriptions of the AHA we can be sure not to represent the AHA

to

By following the recommended descriptions of the AHA we can be sure not to mis-represent the AHA

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Oops. Thanks. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested TfD close
Hey, Martijn. I see that you have been closing pending TfDs. Would you consider closing this one: Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 14? It has been open since December 14 -- 28 days, and the !vote has stood at 7 to 2 against the proposed merge since December 31 == 11 days ago. WikiProject College football has a pending initiative to revise the content and graphics of this infobox template to better tailor its suitability for current college players as well as former college players who never played pro football (see here, here, and here). I would be grateful if you could draw a line under this stalled TfD, and let the template stakeholders go forward with the planned revisions to the template and its implementation across 500 to 1,500 articles. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dirtlawyer. It's a very difficult discussion for me to close. I'm still gathering my thoughts about it. I'll mark it as closing if I decide I can close it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion. I'll have some more comments on it later. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considered response there. I'm sure you can see the irony of including partisan canvassing, conducted in an attempt to prevent a merger, as a reason why a merger cannot go ahead. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have time for the more comments alluded above right now, but I understand and appreciate your response. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious
  compromise

Thank you, vateran editor, for welcoming new users, page moves and redirects, recommending for adminship, discussing articles for deletion and moving articles for creation, for closing template discussions,, thoughts on compromise and the focused brevity of your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda, it is very much appreciated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Mary McCarthy Wiki Page
Hi, I just tried to edit this page, but got this notification- "2:09, 30 November 2013 Martijn Hoekstra (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary T. McCarthy (Baschoff) (G13: Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation page that has not been edited in over six months (CSDH))" Any way that I could use the text in place and continue editing?

Thanks. 73.163.77.219 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Sarah McCarthy January 15, 2015
 * Hi Sarah. I've restored the page, it's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary T. McCarthy (Baschoff). It was deleted as a draft that hadn't been edited for six months. That last edit is almost three years ago now. From my perspective, it doesn't look like McCarthy meets our guidelines for inclusion for biographies, which means that the article will never be accepted, no matter how much work is put in. Please do carefully review that guideline, and check if McCarthy meets it; it would be a shame if you put effort in the draft if no matter how good the writing it just doesn't meet the criteria. Regards, and happy editing, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time-Resolved Fluorescence Energy Transfer has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template merger undone
The you recently thanked me for has been reverted at one end. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Final note on discussion
I think the discussion ended on the host's page. I just wanted to thank you for being that age-old and timeless "voice of reason." As a final note, I enjoy the activity I have on WP, the research and the editing, and the communication I have with other editors. This was my first unpleasant tête-à-tête, and I will reflect on it. I liked your advice "A thing that can help you is that you are not your edits." It reminded me of Sister Helen Prejean's (Dead Man Walking) - "We are worth more than the worst act we commit," in her thoughts about capital punishment.

I once deleted another editor's unsourced sentence. They were an IP user and had made the single entry as a contributor. Within an hour or so, the IP user came back to the page and deleted something else, that had been sourced, perhaps in retaliation. This was the last time I did not "bother" to go to a Users Talk Page (or create their Talk page, if they did not have one) to discuss my deletion of their edits. I realized that it might have been their first contribution to WP, and as a longer term editor, I should welcome them, not scare them off WP.

In this situation, I realized that the External Links (a Twitter and FB account link) that were taken off my newly created page, by Shinyang-i, had been left untouched in all other pages I had created for the past year. Some of these pages had been reviewed, and I had received the pings of the reviews, and some had been reviewed and rated, which may have lulled me into thinking that adding them was acceptable, since other editors/adminstrators had left them previously.

Regardless of my awareness of WP Rules and Regulations, I have observed and believe the tenants of WP are that a rule is a guide, but not a given. I have observed "overzealous" patrollers who seem to have found a new rule - and are trying to make everyone abide by it. One such was the Edit Summary - which I frankly thought was an option, since many long term users were not adding one, and one had even given the argument that the Edit could be found in the Revision History - and he did not intend to repeat redundant work. The overzealous patroller even crudely told a Korean language speaker that they should leave English WP, after accusing them of not understanding English and ignoring him.

Enough rambling on, thanks again for your wise words - I didn't think this would be a win-lose situation, and feel enriched by it. However, if I get to the point of belittling communication with other editors, of belittling the subject that I am editing, and of using belittling language to others on WP, I will know that my time is no longer fun, and I need to give it up. This is volunteer work, that we do for pleasure - not a hated chore. Thanks again!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing about the rules is, yes, they are more like guidelines, but also, they are the the vast majority of time the right thing to do. They are there to remind and inform Wikipedians of earlier discussion that had a specific outcome, and help you prevent having that discussion over and over again; you can simply refer to the earlier discussion. It's OK not to know about all rules, and it's OK to break them out of ignorance. (And it's definitely OK not to know that. It took me years to really grok how that works, and I passed RfA long before I really did) I sometimes think I don't even know half the rules of everything that happens around here, and they've set the admit bit on my account over five years ago. It's not OK however to not take note of some regulation or guideline if someone undoes or changes your edit, pointing at a guideline, which means, we've discussed this issue before, and found that this is the accepted outcome. I have always had as a rule of thumb that if there is a rule on wikipedia, I follow it, unless I understand the rule and all it's nuances very well, and can articulate exactly why it's OK to ignore it in this particular instance. This happens very very rarely, which goes to show that our rules, despite being complex, large in number, sometimes vague, and sometimes overly exact, are probably pretty good. As on the issue that they are acceptable because they were accepted in review and rating, well, the average Wikipedia page violates about a bazillion Wikipedia rules (give or take). Even our featured articles have still room left for improvement. The only thing you can really take away from something being reviewed is that it passes the bar for speedy deletion, and someone thought that it wouldn't qualify for regular deletion. A whole lot of work goes in to an article to make it go from passing review to making a featured article - a status very few articles ever reach. That means neither that a page that came by review is a bad thing for the encyclopedia, nor that it is very good right away. Just that it's at least in a vaguely passable state, e.g. no irredeemable spam, not gibberish, and that the subject is probably suitable for inclusion. Many articles are far better than that when they pass review, but few are actually very good. That's alright. We're a work in progress. But you can't really draw any other conclusions from it.  I'm not really familiar with either KPop itself of our coverage of it, but I expect it to be one of those subjects that suffer a great deal of systemic bias. There are relatively few English speaking people with an interest in developing articles on the subject in comparison to the size and global notability of the subject matter. What happens often in those areas is that editors lack sufficient reading and writing proficiency in English to either write good prose, understand our rules and guidelines (they are difficult enough to grasp for native speakers, throw in an extra language barrier, and it basically becomes impossible to understand what's going on), or to engage meaningfully with other editors. Couple that with a subject matter that is mainly interesting to, forgive my crudeness, teenage fanboys/fangirls, and that leaves us with something that doesn't have very much resemblance to an encyclopedia anymore. I understand that for editors who want to bring those articles up to a decent state, things must be a constant struggle. It can be exhausting to explain the same thing over and over again to newcomers.  How well one deals with that differs from person to person. I find it very rewarding whenever I am able to actually help someone explain what this place is about, and help them become (better) editors, which for me makes up for the hoards of people who are not here to become (better) editors or to improve Wikipedia, but just to tell the world about how awesome their favorite X is. But from an utilitarian point of view, it makes no sense to try to invest that time in a newcomer whose proficiency in English is simply too poor to ever become an effective editor, as in the case of your story of unwelcomingness. This harsh truth is very unpleasant, and feel like it should be very much removed from the Wikipedia ideal, where we strive to always do the right thing. But currently, it's not, and for a subject matter of which our coverage is - or so I've been told be my multiple people - a mess, I can't blame anyone for not taking the time to help a newcomer when the expected return of investment of helping that newcomer is close to zero. It almost physically hurts me to be so unkind and calculating, but it's the naked truth of the matter. But here me and my soapbox go again, and the best way for anyone to really learn Wikipedia is to do it. So I'd best let you back at it. And so should I, really. Despite my long tenure here, I've never written a single good article, and I really should wipe that blemish from my name. Race you to it? Regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (watching) Martin, it's not a blemish not to have written a GA, but it's also not difficult to write one: just pick a limited topic. The first article I got to GA status was not written by me, Great Dismal Swamp maroons. One from 2013 will be featured in February. GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra thanks for your time. Yes, I looked through the rating list for articles early on, and am cheered if I get a Start! Hey, it's not a stub! I don't expect to rise very high with K-pop and Korean popular culture related pages, but I'm getting good practice! Good luck with the GA in the near future. And, yes, I'm trying to abide by the rules - I think I may be doing overkill on references. Yes, my acquaintances in K-pop interests are older - but I have seen some good work on WP by serious young people who list bios on their User pages - it's good to see young people excited about WP!

However, a sad note (I did check back to the host page discussion and was concerned that Shinyang-i had called me a "lazy cretin" and then deleted it, which does not delete.  Not being that well versed in her level of street language, I had to look it up - I can accept the first definition 1. 1) a stupid person (used as a general term of abuse). but find the 2) a person who is deformed and mentally handicapped because of congenital thyroid deficiency. - a very sad and deplorable way for any person connected to any portion of WP administration to be speaking - and saying it to you, another Administrator. Many of the Talk pages read like novels - but to have this low form of language - especially in connection with handicapped people - is very disheartening. I like intellectual sparring and I have a bawdy sense of humor, she could have called me a bi**ch, a do**chebag or any number of things - but references to handicapped people is politically incorrect and over the top.)  I won't make more of an issue of it, I think nature will take it's course.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

something on earth
I watched you comment on astro object and invite you to look at something more on earth, as just, - perhaps I can understand you better then. Watching here, unless you want to comment in the other template discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, there is so much of this mess flying around, well, everywhere that I've lost track of what you're asking. Could you give me a hand and sacrifice some subtlety for some clarity? I think I mainly need the latter at the moment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the link? I hoped I was clear, and feedback if this is not so would also help me . Don't know what you mean by mess, template discussions or arbcom enforcement? The word "mess" is mentioned on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I always regret speaking German so poorly, the imagery of the language is so much more vivid than in English; "Schweinerei" is a word I'd much rather use here than "mess" - and that goes for the ArbCom enforcement and the template discussions both - and possibly the original ArbCom case as well, but I haven't read the evidence there thoroughly, and I hope I won't find my self in a situation where I feel I should, because I don't have the impression I would enjoy it. The entire enforcement circus around the case seems to have evolved into a game of wiki-nomic, for which I see no way out other than at least the proposed review, in which I intend to participate. The amount of energy all such drama is asking from me is quite large, and commenting on the current instances where things have gotten completely out of hand would likely cause me to present a lesser case for the review, which I view as more important. It's not unreasonable to call that cowardice or conflict avoidance, but it is for me the truth of the matter. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you answered Schweinerei well. I don't want you (or anybody else) to review Teh Case, believe me, it was a waste of time, and a review will be more of the same. I had people review one diff, that took time already but told me enough about all arbs at the time not looking at basic evidence. One arb quoted the diff (which he probably wasn't able to interpret) as a reason for a ban vote, and none of the colleagues took the time to look and perhaps correct. All other so-called evidence was years old at the time of the case, which is more than a year ago. - No, you didn't answer the composition-hymn question, but you don't have to. I changed two hymns from one to the other and will wait if anybody even notices. I am afraid that most of the opposers never tried to use infobox hymn, possibly not even any other. - You spoke about compromise being difficult, because an infobox can be only yes or no, - I say it can also be a slim version, such as Handel. The war is over, no good new for those who want to fight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't really looked very closely at the hymn one, but I have the distinct impression that it hasn't been about the merits of the proposal on the table for quite a while. I think it might be worth-while trying to find out why that is. I have some impressions, but no answers or good solutions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Userfyed years in NV
Thanks for letting me know. However, I don't like to be called Jackninja. Call me Jack, Ninja5 or Jackninja5. :) Jackninja5 (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies Jack, will do from now on. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

TFD closure
Hey Martin, would you be able to finish the discussion which resulted in the deletion of this template? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I deleted the template, thank you for reminding me; it slipped through the cracks. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for you
Martijn, I have a question for you. Until mid-December 2014, admin Plastikspork had closed most TfD discussions during my 5+ years on Wikipedia, and recently had closed virtually all of them. For a variety of reasons, I am glad that you have stepped up over the last several weeks and taken the closing of TfDs in hand. I am curious: was this done by pre-arrangement with Plastikspork? Or have you just stepped into the void to fill the need? Plastikspork seems to have stopped editing abruptly in mid-December and has not edited or closed any TfDs since.

I still owe you a follow-up response to several issues you raised on my talk page. That will happen soon. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dirtlawyer. No, it was neither of the two. I noticed Plastikspork was closing pretty much all TfD's when I waded in there, and decided to lend a hand. Soon after, Plastikspork disappeard, and I sort of "took over". It sometimes happens on wikipedia somebody is filling a void because nobody else is doing it. If someone else then steps in, the person who's been doing it, sometimes for years, takes a well-deserved break. It's pure speculation whether or not this is the case as right now as well, but it seems like it. It's also possible they felt I encroached on their territory (I hope not!) In the end, it's just guesswork. I wish they'd come back though, it's better if more then one person does these kinds of things. When it's almost a single person doing something, there is the risk that the process gets molded too much to the interpretation of that single editor, and that's not good for a community process, and also because having a low bus factor is never a good thing (though I'm not too worried about that. In my experience if that does happen, somebody else will step in if the backlog gets too unbearable). I look forward to your follow-up, but don't feel pressured or rushed. I will not hold it against you if you need some more time to gather your thoughts or formulate them well for yourself before writing them down. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I think TfD has been in need of a fresh perspective for some time, and I am happy that you seem to have volunteered for the job.  As you said, ". . . there is the risk that the process gets molded too much to the interpretation of that single editor, and that's not good for a community process."  Exactly so.


 * FYI, a lot of my collected thoughts regarding current and accumulated TfD issues are embodied in my extended oppose !votes and rationales to a couple of the still-open 29 November 2014 TfDs. More coming, but consider those comments a preview of coming attractions my extended reply on my talk page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, don't cheer too much just yet, our opinions might have less overlap that you might think. But I always hope I'm able to keep that out of my admin actions, and recuse myself if I have the feeling it might not. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No cheering, Martijn. I am hopeful, however, that there will be greater adherence to basic XfD procedures. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't hesitate to bring stuff to my attention when you think I'm doing things wrong. I like to think of myself I listen and incorporate feedback. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Martijn, I have had zero reason to complain about any administrative action you have taken in the time since I've been following. In fact, it was your RfC and posts on the TfD talk page that attracted my attention in the first instance.  You believe in procedural fairness, and from what I've seen, do your best to adhere to your personal understanding of it.  No complaints.  As for disagreements over substance, reasonable persons can disagree reasonably; I don't expect you (or anyone else) to agree with me in every instance.  It would be unnatural otherwise.  No complaints.  Doing your best to listen and incorporate feedback?  Sounds close to ideal.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Request immediate TfD closure
Martijn, I would like to request the immediate closure of Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22. This TfD was originally initiated as a delete TfD on November 29, 2014; was re-opened as a merge TfD on December 8, 2014, and remained open for 25 days until it was closed as a "keep" by a non-administrator on January 2, 2015; it was re-opened pursuant to a DRV for an inadequate/inappropriate NAC on January 22, 2015, and it has now been open for seven days since then. During the seven days, four more discussion participants have evenly split 2–2, adding to a cumulative !vote of 13–7, or 65% opposed to the proposed merge. It is time that this TfD be closed: it has been open for a total of 32 days, and has attracted 20 participants -- more than all but a handful of TfDs in the past year. It is also evident there is no consensus to support the proposed merge; it's time to draw a line under this one. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (watching:) I have looked at that page and stayed out. There is so much ignorance in the arguments that you would need a day to patiently clarify, - I don't have that day. I will talk to Jerome Kohl, whom I like very much, but the government/organization of a university is in no way related to the name (!) of the infobox which the reader doesn't even see, as the character of a hymn is in no way diminished if the same (!) information appears under a different internal template name. Compare a hymn in two version, using infoboxes infobox hymn and infobox musical composition: hymn and composition. You see that "composition" even tells the reader "hymn", a fact he doesn't see in the former. - If two templates serve the same function to the reader (!), why would we want to maintain and update two? - "Hope is the first word on my talk, received in 2014 and kept, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda, the central issue in the TfD is not what the names of the templates should be. It is a matter of what parameters should be available for university-level articles as distinct from those parameters that should be available for the articles about the constituent colleges, schools, departments, institutes, and other subdivisions of the universities.  The university-level template includes 60 parameters; the division-level template shares 23 or 24 of those, but intentionally excludes 35 or 36 of the university-level parameters that are not appropriate for the division-level articles.  Moreover, the division-level articles require an additional 5 or 6 parameters that are not appropriate for university-level articles.  There are two distinctly different sets of parameters with overlap; maintaining separate templates eliminates the ongoing maintenance issue regarding inappropriate parameter selection for the actual editors of these articles.  It's really not about template names, but about keeping separate classes of parameters correctly defined across 20,000+ articles.  In this case, one combined template does not serve the function of two.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm recusing myself from closing that one, as there are some issues that I don't know how to deal with properly, which is going to take some time for me to properly figure out. As for the discussion on whether having more non applicable parameters is better or worse than having (partially) redundant templates is something people can reasonably argue about, and which can differ from template from template. Modulisation can sometimes be done to find a common ground, but not always. I wish that such a discussion would have taken place on that TfD, but unfortunately the discussion there is more akin to the argument sketch, which nobody in that TfD has been able to overcome. That's not limited to specifically that TfD. For the general case, an interesting thought-experiment for the non-applicable parameters is to ask how editors know these non-applicable parameters exist. I assert very few check the template itself for parameters, but rather the documentation. Now if we would have, hypothetically, a very broad template, with very many parameters that are only applicable for certain cases, and we have very thin wrappers that only allow for the use of certain parameters which it directly forwards to the broad template, and the documentation were to only describe the supported parameters, that wouldn't be a problem. The only effective difference between these two templates would be the documentation. Now suppose we could have a trick to redirect all parameters automatically to the central template, but the documentation of the page would only show the documentation for the specific thin wrapper, how many editors would know the difference between the two (come to think of it, this trick might actually be possible with a Lua module, but that's largely besides the point). How much worse would having that documentation centrally on the broader template for the specific usecases? To me, the additional effort of finding the right copy/paste template is the only downside over having a thin wrapper, while the upside would be if a parameter is added or changed, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation of the template where the actual change is made, as opposed to finding all applicable wrappers, updating them all, and updating all their documentation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Martijn, I have already made closure requests elsewhere (AN and TfD talk). My concern is that if you won't close it, no one will, and this TfD (and the related TfDs) will stumble on with the same repetitive arguments, zombie-like, even as the core substance is lost in the fog.  If not closed now, it's just as likely to still be open in a month because no sensible administrator wants to wade through it.


 * As for your substantive suggestions, several of them are valid, if not ideal solutions. Instead of ignoring and/or dismissing the legitimate parameter-selection issues raised relatively early in the TfD discussion, the various wrapper options could have been raised and explained to the discussion participants, and there might have been a possibility of finding common ground.  Now, we are starting the ninth week of related discussions, and the nominator is still determined to fight it out to the conclusion to achieve a "merge."  When templates have distinct, but related purposes and distinct, but overlapping parameter sets, combining them into a "master" template is always a possible option.  For me, however, the determining factors are not the small measure of additional maintenance required for two separate templates (which almost everyone agrees could be greatly reduced from the 7 or 8 separate templates for constituent colleges, schools, faculties, etc., that now exist), but (1) the simplicity and ease of use for the editors who write and maintain these articles (including separate instructions, copy-and-paste examples, and example mock-ups), (2) the avoidance of selecting inappropriate parameters for university vs. division-level uses, and (3) the avoidance of incremental/cruft growth by the importation of inappropriate parameters across university vs. division-level uses.  As I understand the concept, "thin wrappers" do not solve problems (1) and (2), even if a separate template page is maintained for the wrapper.


 * As a lawyer who writes corporate governance documents, I bring my own set of biases to the table. One of those biases is to keep separate problems and/or issues separate from each other, because conflating them often complicates their resolution.  In short, it's usually easier to solve two simple problems than it is to solve one complicated problem.  In this case, by combining two separate templates with two distinct purposes, ostensibly for some small reduction in template maintenance, we are forced to create a far more complicated solution that does not serve the users of the template(s) as well as two simple solutions.  As one of the actual users of these templates, I can see that as plainly as daylight, but several others' opinions clearly differ.


 * At the end of the day, a lot of ink has been spilled in this and the related TfDs. What an apparent majority agree on is that the various templates for academic subdivisions should be rolled into a single template for academic subdivisions with a handful of discipline-specific optional parameters.  There is no majority support for the combination of the templates for university-level and division-level articles, and none of the merge proponents has yet presented a compelling argument based on policy or the guidelines why they must be combined.  Rather than focusing on the obvious agreement, attention is diverted elsewhere, and this zombie TfD lurches forward.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to study the university case, that's why I stay out. Back to the other: I agree that most users don't look at the template. I go further suspecting that they don't even look at the documentation. They see a template used in a similar article and copy from there. In the case of hymn vs. composition, I made a subset in the documentation of composition with those parameters typically needed in hymns. If more parameters seem to be needed - I found one hymn so far mentioning key and time - they can also be found. - I see no reason to keep hymn (other than as a redirect to find the other). - My bias is: avoid redundancy. If a new parameter is deemed worthy to be included, better only in one template than in two or more. Did you know that we used to have infobox Bruckner symphonies? It was merged to composition. Imagine dedicated composer infoboxes for all composers of symphonies, violin concertos ... - better not ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict (yes, I write that slowly))Thanks for your considered response. Wall of text incoming. About (1) and (2), I think we're using a different definition for "thin wrapper" (using different definitions for the same term seems to be a recurring problem on TfD, I'm thinking specifically about "redundant"). I generally mean by a thin wrapper a template that takes a subset of parameters of the more general template, and forwards them (possibly under a different parameter name) to that template. That, as far as I see (correct me if I'm wrong!) does solve (1) and (2); the invocation, documentation and displayed result of a thin wrapper is indistinguishable to that of a dedicated full template. It doesn't really fix your (3) for the broader base template though. The accumulation of cruft in the more general templates is an issue that is not mitigated by thin wrappers though. The desire to put a large amount of information in infoboxes, and the desire to have infoboxes that present uniform information over a large number of articles are at odds with each other for that case. I do have the feeling that the accumulation of cruft leads to more intricacies and maintenance headaches in templates than having redundant templates does. The desire to create broad templates everyone is happy with can sometimes result in the creation of overly broad templates nobody is happy with, and it's a balancing act what to do exactly. I prefer in general more uniform templates across a wider range of articles, and generally prefer to trim little-used parameters as I believe our infoboxes being uniform is more of a service to our readers than our infoboxes having more information (within reasonable limits, where reasonable is totally subjective), but that's definitely not agreed by everybody. There is a catch-22 worth noting when it comes to the relation of wikiprojects and the templates they use. The people who write our articles on specific subjects often have a perspective that mainly focuses on that single subject. As such, there is the real risk they lose track of the bigger picture of uniformity across the whole of Wikipedia. The desire of some people in wikiprojects to maintain their "own" templates is an exponent of that, which runs directly counter to WP:OWN. I see a lot of sentiments on TfD of people who believe that "they" are trying to delete "our" templates, starting a TfD off with hostility from the get go. That's why centralized discussion at TfD are important, and pre-grooming discussions at wikiprojects can be dangerous; sometimes views need to be a little more broad than a specific subject area in the best interest of the entire encyclopedia. At the same time, those editors are most qualified to discuss a templates; they are the ones who use them and encounter their limitations and problems, and can predict most problems of a merge or deletion. For these specific closures (the "university set"), I share all of your concerns, from the nobody closing them for quite a while, to the lumbering forward as zombies in a fog of haze that clouds the central points being attempted to be made. But I'm not going to solve this particular issue. At this point I'd like to ping, not because I'm talking to him, but I will be talking about him, and I don't like to talk about people behind their backs too much. As for the nominator not proposing those things, well, I would prefer if he would do so as well, but there is some more perspective. Firstly, from what I see at TfD, Andy often makes a proposal, and only responds if he perceives something as factually wrong, with what I interpret as a desire to keep the discussion open and free. I've seen a lot of comments that say the exact opposite, that he tries to bludgeon discussion, but that's not my impression at all. I often see that when somebody actually brings up a reasonable alternative Andy supports it. He could be more forthcoming with suggesting compromises like thin wrappers himself (though he's under no obligation, and why should he, if others don't either? answer: because others often don't have the same grasp of the possibilities of what to best do with templates that he does ) That brings me to secondly though; he's often put in between a rock and a hard place. If he proposes a concrete proposal, he is getting blamed for not offering any alternatives. If he offers more alternatives in a TfD, he gets blamed for making suggestions not in line with the original proposal. If he includes them in the original proposal, he is getting told to proposal is too vague to support. There really is no way to do it right and please them all. This is a similar situation where he is simultaneously blamed for including a TfD notification and not including a TfD notification of merge targets, sometimes in the same discussion. This is also a similar situation to where he proposes something for deletion, and people object saying it's not a merge proposal, and then when the TfD closes, and he re-opens a merge proposal, people object to it because a TfD about the subject was just recently closed as keep. I note that this is almost the situation for the academic division one. You can't blame the man for in good faith listing some template for discussion, you can't blame him for re-opening as a merge proposal if a large number of people in the TfD just said that they oppose because it's not a merge proposal. You can't blame him for the discussion being relisted, and you can't blame him either for bringing a close to DRV, especially if the DRV closed in support of his nomination there. In the end, we have a lumbering zombie TfD, which sucks, but we have no witch to burn here that caused this in Andy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're very perceptive. For the last few months, I've deliberately used different approaches in TfD/Ms, to see which works best. And I've been castigated for all of them. Often by the same people. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree, there appear to be a small herd of detractors who hound Andy wherever he goes, they appear to have no actual interest in the individual cases at hand.  Montanabw (talk)  15:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the case, but be careful though Montanabw; I don't for a minute doubt that these editors also are acting to do the right thing for Wikipedia, and are trying to correct a problem for the good of Wikipedia. Us vs Them is not a useful paradigm if everyone is acting in good faith. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations
Thanks for thinking about motion in the infoboxes field. Mine would be even simpler: all participants stick to 1 revert in an article and 2 comments in a discussion. At present only I am restricted to two comments, see what happens. I didn't even mention Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation this time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do think a making the 3RR a 2RR or even 1RR would be a good thing for Wikipedia in general; I was torn whether I should suggest it at all, as we currently "allow" others to revert up to 3RR as well (which is stupid, and I've never seen it be helpful), but the fact of the matter is that Andy does resort to edit warring; not often, but it does happen, and it should stop. Having a remedy for it doesn't seem too bad. Having global restrictions for all editors that are different when touching an infobox than they are for the rest of wikipedia isn't a good idea in my opinion; it's just too confusing, ant it isn't in ArbComs remit to impose 1RR or 2RR on the entirety of Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Grand AI
Hi Martijn. I'm closing some of the RfCs dealing with user-rights; when I'm done with that, I want to start some conversations on what makes people more (or less) comfortable with the issues. You said "There is talk of the grand AI in the sky" at WP:VPR ... and I'm torn on that one. If people agree that within 10 years, AI will be able to help us with some of the simpler admin chores, that might be reassuring ... we don't have to do all this hard work ourselves forever, we just need a solution that can work for up to 10 years. On the other hand, AI freaks a lot of people out. But I'm open to the idea that AI is part of the eventual mix; what did you have in mind with your comment? - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dank, I was specifically referring to a recent talk at the WMF about quality measures; it would have been more helpful if I included a link to the talk, but I couldn't find it anymore. Let me put in some more effort to find it, it may be helpful. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm calling in the troops. It was the talk before s talk about the Wikipedia Library. Jake, do you have a link to that talk before you on that quality thing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It will probably also be useful if I just reply to your question. Tools like huggle, the edit filter and cluebot NG are AIs that provide hueristics to give an edit a score on how likely it is to be vandalism. The talk was about the possibility to create a centralized AI that those tools could hook in to. This delay feature could also work from the same central AI. If an edit is found to be possibly or even likely vandalism, you could put on the delay proposed by Tim. But I'm not sure how far along and mature these ideas are, so I - probably unwisely - decided to be funny and make a pun on pie in the sky bending it to AI in the sky. We have the edit filter/abuse filter though, which (among other things) does the same thing: tag edits as possibly unhelpful. I would really support having Tims delay feature work on edits that the edit filter identified as possible vandalism. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay now I understand. I like your energy on this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tim, Martijn, or anyone else: my two cents as a frequent closer of these discussions: the community is wary of anything that affects broad classes of users. I've never seen the community get antsy about software that might allow you to write broader rules for the edit filter, on the theory that we've got a few minutes to verify whether the edit filter got it right. If you frame this as desired improvements to the edit filter, great. If you can come up with any data supporting the idea that the improvements will work as planned, even better. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'm already getting antsy about the discussion where people are commenting along the lines of "So basically this would be (something completely different)". Also, I'm happy to continue thinking about it and discussing it, but it's Tim's proposal; I just happened to be one of the first ones to comment on it, and suggest an alternative. The edit filter spin to it is emphatically not the original proposal, but a different proposal stealing the central idea of the original one. I really don't know if Tim at all agrees with it. I'm also very weary of trying to frame discussions so that their outcomes would suit my preferences. We as a community should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion together without the need to frame the discussion in some way to get maximum traction. But empirically it's clear we aren't; I'm just still in denial. I'll now go and try to come to terms with my peevedness. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For your helpfulness on #wikimedia-tech
You brightened my day with the info, hopefully this will brighten yours!

FKLinguista (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC) 
 * Thank you FKLinguista, all the best of luck with your project! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)