User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 125

= April 2017 =

Please do chime in
I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability within bios (more specifically: application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!)
 * WP:GNG and the notability guidelines have nothing to do with mention of someone in an article, only with who/what may have their/its own entire article. This has been true the entire time WP:N and its derivatives have existed here, and has never changed, even slightly. The controlling policy for what can be included in another article is WP:NOT, which is subjective. Ultimately, it's a matter of article-by-article consensus about relevance to the subject and to readers. There is no doubt in the community about "a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present"; anyone who thinks N/GNG/PROF/etc. apply to in-article content is simply mistaken. Whether Matthew Grow is notable or not (since he has an entire article here) is a matter for WP:AFD, and is again no kind of "issue" that needs airing on Jimbo's talk page or any other debate forum. It's a standard question for which we have a standard test, GNG. If Grow is covered, in depth, in multiple, reliable, independent sources, then he's notable, and that's the entire test. It has no elements of whether anyone thinks he's "important", "interesting", "significant", "famous", etc., etc., etc. (All proposals in this regard died a flaming death; see history at WP:Notability/Historical.)  Anyway, there is no extant thread about this on Jimbo's talk page anyway, so I assume the matter to be resolved, to the extent it needed any resolution. PS: Please replace the   in your sig with the   character. The HTML entity code serves no purpose in that construction.  WP's MediaWiki software engine auto-handles any URL encoding needed for this character (and HTML entity codes are not used for URL encoding in the first place; hex codes are, so your use of the entity code in a username link is technically wrong to begin with).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Question on military ranks
SMcCandlish, I have a question on military ranks listed in university infoboxes... should they or should they not be included? I'm saying no (mainly per WP:HONORIFIC) for one reason: B) they earn those ranks... kind of like the academic world earns their title 'Dr.', 'Professor', etc, or how medical doctors earn theirs. I know they earn their titles in different ways, but my point is they earn the title/rank, it isn't a given. Had they been born with that title, then I may lean towards inclusion. The debate right now is at Talk:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. I'm just looking for an answer, hopefully from someone (like you) who is an 'expert' in this guidelines. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 22:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would go with the "It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded that rank is included only where that rank is the individual's job title" interpretation, I think. I also agree with: "Dr. Connie Book ... is given ceremonial rank in the South Carolina militia to 'blend in' in a pseudo[-]military setting ... she has never served in the military in any capacity". As WP does not use "Dr.", "Prof.", and other such titles, we would not use "Brigadier General" even aside from the "not really military personnel" argument. I'll say as much over at the article talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite
Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 21, January-March 2017 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikipedia Library User Group
 * Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
 * Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:West Montrose, Ontario
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:West Montrose, Ontario. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Quotation
Please see Template talk:Quotation -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Graduate School
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European Graduate School. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Merge" tag intact in MOS:CAPS and MOS:TITLE
I saw you proposed a merger a while back. However, the merger discussion was archived without progress. Can the merger be re-proposed, or may I remove the templates? --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would re-open the discussion; the cleanup still needs to happen, and removing the tags won't make that go away, just make it take much longer to get it done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

BA article
Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your input on this hotly debated article. I noticed that you reverted your initial vote based on input form Faustian and Malik Shabazz, who said that the reference still appears on EJ and was dropped by JVL — not true— please see comments made by user Poeticbent back on 2 April, 2017 in the "Detailed discussion thread" section of this RfC:

"Is not known why Jewish Virtual Library no longer features article HALLER'S ARMY. The JVL Source was: Encyclopaedia Judaica © 2008 (according to Wayback capture from 2011). The online Encyclopaedia Judaica has their own Search feature. Results for HALLER'S ARMY revealed "no content matched". We don't know why the original article HALLER'S ARMY is now missing from both, JVL and EJ."

I would greatly appreciate it if you could again review the sources. --E-960 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment on the lead of West Montrose, Ontario
Good afternoon. We could really use an Editor who can quickly review the TALK section, determine what the consensus is about the lead, and confirm that to the group debating a few issues.

There was a photo, of an Old Order Mennonite buggy - taken nearby by not right in West Montrose - but after a lot of argument, pro and con, I gave in and deleted that. So ignore any Talk items about that. The only current dispute is about the lead which is really quite brief; you will find a few Talk threads about it.

Here is a summary of the situation as I see it:

This article had not a single citation until March 22, 2017 when I first began to edit it. I added new content and many citations. Now, the argument is about the lead. An editor (who worked on the article extensively prior to March 22) complained about the reliability of the sources; we seemed to get consensus in Talk that they are reliable.

He then objected to the content of the lead - although half of it was much the same as it was prior to my involvement.

He then said the sources do not support the content of the text. We were waiting for other involved editors to provide their comments about his new objections. He chose not to wait and deleted much of the lead and citations. I reverted that.

Perhaps I am biased but that's the way I see developments. Fresh eyes may help move toward a consensus, one way or the other. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:ExcessiveCitations and Template:Overcite
Seems that we have two templates, Template:ExcessiveCitations and Template:Overcite, with conflicting names. Template:Excessive citations redirect to "Overcite". Should I boldly move them to another name via WP:RMTR, or should I do the RMs? --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The template at ExcessiveCitations should be moved to (and redirect to) Excessive citations, per several years of cleanup effort to give most templates clearer and less gobbledegook names. Excessive citations should never have redirected to Overcite if we had a template called . People may support merging these templates, but they may also want to draw a distinction between a) a redundant pile-up of citations for a single fact (more than three cites is discouraged, and one is usually sufficient), and b) the text generally being peppered with too many citations, one clause or verb at a time, instead of in larger blocks. These are severable concerns (and there are others, e.g. overreliance on the same cite, putting too many cites in the lead instead of keeping the lead clean and putting cites in the main body, and so on).  I'm not sure the two templates in question make such distinctions adequately. Anyway, I would fix the ExcessiveCitations naming issue by RMTR; move ExcessiveCitations to Excessive citations, which will overwrite the confusing redirect and create an R from move from ExcessiveCitations to Excessive citations in the process.  For merging or other matters, I would open a full discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "overcite" template is transcluded in 100+ pages; the other, six(!). I think opening an RM discussion is my safe bet. George Ho (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Following the longer process rarely causes problems.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I started the RM discussion at Template talk:Overcite, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Omg
[This] was seven years ago. It surely must be time for another crack. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't normally stalk TPs, and if this is an inside joke then forgive me, but you, sir, are either pathologically optimistic or very, very mean. SMc, I'm having fun, of course. You'd have my vote in a second, although I'd probably be immediately blocked for trolling. Primergrey (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't quite get my head round the jokes and seriousness of the response. I'm aware that RL stuff is damaging my sense of humour antennae currently. I'm not well up on Wikipolitics and don't frequent the drama boards, so may have an incorrectly rosy view of "SMc" as an excellent Wikipedian. If so, I'll be happy to keep that view and move on. Either way, ping me if there's serious interest. And feel free to check the link in my sig. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dweller, maybe I should be posting this at your TP, but at the risk of embarrassing SMc, I feel I ought to clear the air here. My post was purely jest. I think SMc does as much as anyone, and more than many, to establish and maintain WP standards. Primergrey (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great. And it was my opinion seven years ago, too! :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the votes of confidence, but I would stand no chance of adminship here, because I'm too irascible and do not kiss enough a[ss|rse]. I do not suffer fools lightly, and will call them out even when it is a wiki-politically unpopular move, because I have no damned patience for political, territorial, and other chest-beating games. I care only about the success and quality of the project for its readership. That is not now and never has been either a prerequisite nor a sufficient qualification for adminship. The principal qualification is to become and remain popular, and the second one – closely tied to it – is not having pissed off anyone who matters and who bears grudges. That said, I have a "don't want to be an admin" userbox on my page for a reason. After that RfA, I took a longer look at what adminship tends to do to editors over time, and decided I wouldn't want to walk that path anyway. I've seen way too many highly productive and apolitical content editors slowly converted into enforcers for one in-group or another, or too mired in bureaucracy for its own sake to work much on writing or improving content any longer.  I'm more useful unfettered by adminship's restraints.
 * Oddly enough, even though we don't always agree, I would likely vote for you in an RfA. We need more people outside the "in groups" as admins. And more admins willing to speak up - even if you do speak up at long long length. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This place has become so politicized, various people are convinced I in some clique, the mythical MoS cabal.  People see a conspiracy anywhere two or more editors agree with each other but not the conspiracy theorist, anywhere collaboration is observed but what the collaboration produces isn't what that individual demands. The real fact of the matter is, of course, that some editors understand what MoS (the source of almost all animosity toward me) is and does and why. It's a largely arbitrary (but hard-won) set of rules that exist so we have some rules at all to prevent the same style fights breaking out over and over again, article by article, every day. Meanwhile, other editors are deluded that MoS is some form of Truth, that parts of it are Wrong, and therefore there is a Moral Imperative to Correct it, at all costs.  It's been that way since the start, and this will continue. It has continued even after the chief proponent of that latter mindset was topic-banned then indeffed (a martyrdom I tried to prevent but, as usual, am blamed for).  As long as my username is associated in any way with keeping MoS stable (which it surely will be for life, even if I never edited at MoS again), I have a never-ending stockpile of opponents. Even if I thought adminship were suited for me and me for it, I would stand no chance of passing RfA.  But I know it's not for me anyway.  I'm more useful to WP as a gnoming curmudgeon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, accept my admiration, if you can't accept a nom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaslighting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gaslighting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tsolak Bekaryan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tsolak Bekaryan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)