User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2019/Feb

Thanks
Thanks very much. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The Baker Street Irregulars: February 2019
Hello, Newyorkbrad. In your recent edit to the above article, what published source may be cited for the new membership count? In the following edit, where 1946 was changed to 1949, was the cited source for that date incorrect, or did an editor mistype a "6"? Also, the article needs a source citation for your added material on scion groups. I'm just trying to keep track of sources and the statements they support in the article, as WP requires citations for article content changes. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It is good that someone is policing the sourcing for mainspace edits, even though these are uncontroversial and not-overly-important ones.
 * On the membership count, I was thinking that your query could lead to an interesting, if somewhat familiar, debate about the no-original-research policy. If in 2018 there had been a total of 683 members, and in January 2019 nine new ones were added,, would it be an improper synthesis to update the figure and say there have now been 692 members? Fortunately, we can avoid that debate as there is indeed a source for the figure 692, in the official BSI membership roster.
 * On the date correction for the original series of the Baker Street Journal, it appears that the second "1946" was a typo. There were 13 quarterly issues between 1946 and 1949. The correct date already appeared on-wiki, with sourcing, in the Baker Street Journal article.
 * Regarding the scion groups, the fact that the Adventuresses are separate from the Irregulars was already in the article. It is common knowledge that the Sherlock Holmes Society and the Bootmakers are also separate from the Irregulars; I will try to find a reliable source stating the fact, but it is a matter of proving a negative; certainly there wasn't, and couldn't have been, a source for the prior statement that the Bootmakers are a scion of the BSI, because I don't believe they are, and they have multiple scions of their own. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The backbone of WP is its verifiability. That's why the simple maths addition of 9 new members is WP:SYNTH, annoying as that can be. You have found an online source, so great.== The typo would have been better dealt with using the edit summary "typo". Also, if a statement is supported by a source in some other WP article, always copy that citation and paste it into the second article. It's policy, as it enables verification. WP software can't show a reader a citation in a different article than the one they are reading, yet.== As for the "common knowledge" about the Irregulars' scions, that dog won't hunt on WP, as it isn't common to everyone. What I do in such situations is to jigger my statement to make it be true for the available sources, which may mean being slightly more vague in my assertions. If you are a fluent, flexible writer, you'll find a way to retain the intent of that edit.


 * I'll fiddle with the first two, but, as your third edit covers territory more your own, would you please find a way to align your third edit with the available sources, and include them? Many thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. As it happens, I started editing Wikipedia in a much earlier era, when the sourcing requirements weren't interpreted as strictly as they are now, particularly with regard to undisputed and uncontroversial assertions. Perhaps I learned some bad or outdated habits then, suitable for the era, which I'll now need to outgrow. I'm familiar with the policies and guidelines, as reflected in the fact that I cited them myself, but I appreciate the reminders about current standards and expectations. (I do have some concern that overzealous emphasis on punctiliously referencing every addition to articles, however slight, can be a deterrent to new editors&mdash;but that isn't about the edits you flagged, and it's a broader discussion than this one.)
 * With regard to the "scions" edit, I will check my library for a source, but it's a holiday weekend here and I may not be able to do so for a few days. If you think the sentence should be removed in the meantime, I won't object. Actually, maybe it should be removed anyway; arguably it is not especially germane to the article on a group to list other groups that aren't affiliated with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Simple maths" is not synthesizing. See WP:CALC, three sections below WP:SYNTH. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, The ed17. In an actual situation, might you simply cite a source for the older figure, as well as citing a source  for the change over time, leaving the reader to do the rest? I haven't encountered (nor looked for) this type of citation myself. If that's all it is, it's no real bother at all, though one solid source is preferable, and less effort.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm ordinarily inclined to the view that something like simple addition doesn't violate either the letter or spirit of WP:SYNTH. That said, there's a Devil's advocate argument that adding 683 plus 9 in this instance is problematic because it might lead to an incorrect claim after all. If the group had had 683 total members as of January 2018, and added 9 more members in January 2019, how do we know it didn't add some other new members between January 2018 and January 2019? In this case I know for a fact that it didn't (and the number in the membership list confirms that), but I suppose that sort of hypothetical is the argument in favor of applying the policy more strictly than I might otherwise be inclined to do. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I gotta ask: So Brad, you are a Nero Wolfe devotee as well as a Baker Street Irregular? Just keeping tabs, for my dossier. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, my dossier can be found here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! The description on the image file gives it away. 10Q. Softlavender (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)