User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 139

= June 2018 =

Deletion of the article Pedro Perebal
My article is gonna be deleted. *Sigh... Thinker78 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Been there, experienced that." It happens, and I feel your pain. I hope you understand I !voted as I did after thought and analysis, not for personal reasons, and not because I don't think the subject is interesting. I just decided a long time ago to stick to policy and put my personal interests or "how I would remake WP in my image" wishes aside. (Hell, if I could do as I wished, I would rewrite about 100 things in WP:MOS!) If Perebal learns a bunch more languages and sets some kind of record in Guatemala, he'll get more coverage and will probably be notable. (Someone not notable today isn't necessarily forever non-notable.) I've learned not to create an article unless I have found a) an unmistakable claim of notability that is clearly encyclopedic, and b) a thick pile of sources, at least some of which are major publications outside the subject's home area. If I can't find any, odds are the page will get deleted. Unless the home area is a really big one: it is probably possible to write an article on a Chinese, Russian, Japanese, or Brazilian politician or popstar who has a lot of native-language coverage but none in English yet, because of the massive size of the countries, while it wouldn't be possible to do this with someone who's only covered in the "national" but small-circulation news of Papua New Guinea or Monaco. Guatemala is a borderline case, with a relevant population of about 9 mil (i.e., the population of New York City proper, though the NYC metro area is closure to 30 mil). As another comparison, that's about 9 times the size of the population of Delaware, and about the same as the populations of Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey (each, not collectively). You might try looking for more sources.  Any chance he was mentioned in the Portuguese-language press in Brazil?  In Spanish-language press in countries that border Guatemala?  Maybe in a linguistics journal (unlikely, but one never knows)?  In my case, I lost a bunch of pool player bios; they're people who are US national-class players (which means they're lifelong mega-badasses at billiards, one of the most difficult things to master at a professional competition level), but they don't end up being notable in WP terms unless they have actual national titles under their belts. Being consistently around third or seventh or 13th best in the US isn't good enough (despite it being way, way more of a feat that getting one song into the top-10 pop charts, or landing a few movie or TV roles). I know one personally who shot up quickly in the WPBSA ranks, won a professional Most Improved Player Award, and for a couple of years was consistently in the top 10, and won some state and regional events but never a national title, and she wouldn't pass WP:N (especially now that she's no longer a pro player, and has gone into the family pool hall business). That kind of "sorry, not quite" analysis could change for a particular person, if they were covered in RS for other reasons, like starting a sports equipment line, or being arrested for murdering their spouse, or whatever.  E.g., I got William A. Spinks to WP:GA level, though he was always hovering at the edge of greatness and never actually was a number-one at anything. He got notable for something else, which made him rich after he gave up trying to be a world champion. Though actually there was  enough in-depth press coverage of him as player (which is what I focused on) that he could have squeaked by here even if he hadn't co-invented cue "chalk". (I still need to return to my draft on the other co-inventor, who's actually more notable for something else, the invention of the electric heating coil. It's still weird to me that we don't have an article on him, and I keep meaning to finish mine.)  Anyway, what I've learned, in a nutshell, is to ask "In 100 years, will anyone still care?"  To my chagrin, the answer is probably "yes" for B-movie actors and one-hit wonders in pop music, as it is for sports figures who actually win something, while it tends not to be for academics who don't make huge discoveries or get things named after them, nor for people doing academic pursuits like stuffing their brain with additional languages.  Idea: Try writing an article on him for Spanish Wikipedia (and perhaps Portuguese, though I forget if they've split that one into Portugal and Brazilian editions; if so, use the latter). They will  should be be more apt to accept something like Guatemala-only sourcing as sufficient. Others, working in those languages, might find additional (e.g. print) sources, and in time it might be enough to re-leverage him having an article here.
 * Thanks for the cheer! I can see that you really are deep in afd guidance. Mr. Perebal had coverage in a few non-national sources like Honduras, an international Italian publication, BBC in Spanish and an interview in a Mexican morning show ( I had written those in the references to support gng, except the morning show for being a primary source). I tried an article in the Spanish Wikipedia but it fared worse: it actually got speedy deleted. Thinker78 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that he was interviewed on a TV show in Mexico is potentially a GNG help, even if the content of the interview is primary. It could be included in the article by quoting from it; our readers would actually want to know what he says about his motivation and devotion, and it's a valid primary source for that, per WP:ABOUTSELF.  The Honduran and Italian bits are worth keeping, but the coverage wasn't in-depth enough to help much in this case.  Still, it's a start.  If it's deleted, I would say to ask for a WP:REFUND to userspace to continue drafting, and check for new stuff about him periodically.  Even one or two more non-trivial sources might be sufficient. Remember WP:There is no deadline.  I have some drafts that are 10+ years old. Despite anti-draft ranting, we're not deleting drafts that actually have potential.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ununderstandable
Received opinion notwithstanding, it actually is. ;) Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (though more often with a hyphen); I probably shouldn't have used "not a word", for the same reason that "irregardless isn't a word" isn't literally true. You'll find it in dictionaries, too, since it's attested.  Rather: neither are words one would normally use in a register like this. (The quoted Jaspers use of the word in the dictionary material probably illustrates why; it's being used wryly as a funny word people aren't liable to take very seriously.) And it was redundant anyway; the two previous terms already had the concept covered.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries, the edit was fine. The edit comment triggered my inner grammar nazi, that's all. :D
 * What I don't understand, though, is where you get the idea that Karl Jaspers was joking when he called delusions ununderstandable (""). Paradoctor (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More clearly: Eilan translated it as "ununderstandable" (a word missing from many dictionaries, in either spelling, but parseable with effort) to be amusing or point-making. What Jaspers meant would be better translated into regular English as "incomprehensible", a more straightforward, serious statement.  "Un[-]understandable" isn't even found in the dictionary aggregator Dictionary.com. It's not one people aren't likely to recognize or think of as a proper word, but which they'll puzzle over for a moment, and roll around on their mental tongue. That's surely what Eilan wanted, to editorially imply not just a psychiatric challenge, but a deep disconnect between everyday reality and the reality tunnel inside the head of the schizophrenic. The word is kind of "crazy".  And it's use is clever, in that "ununderstandable" takes some effort to be understandable.  I'm reminded of Bilbo's "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve", near the start of The Lord of the Rings.  The effect of such constructions is widely recognized as silly, ironic, playful, piss-taking, or otherwise light-hearted.  English generally does not stack the same prefix or suffix, or use double negatives.  If you say that your lawsuit, which was rejected at the trial court as illegitimate but accepted on appeal, was "held to be illegitimate" people understand that you're being wry and making light of the tedious and expensive legal struggle, or perhaps mocking the lower court (humor again, but pointed and at someone's expense), not just flatly stating that your case is legitimate. If tell you my mutt of a dog is rather non-nonpareil, you get that I'm playing with words (perhaps to mock the dog show crowd) and not  stating that my dog is unexceptional, which I could have done with a simpler construction that didn't imply snootiness on the part of the pedigree pushers.  The WP material in question (even if it did need a third descriptor there) shouldn't use such a construction, since it projects a fun-taking opinion/stance by the writer, which may be appropriate in an editorial (and sometimes even a journal paper), but not in encyclopedic writing.  That's probably a pointlessly long answer; I suspect you know and agree with all this already. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Eilan translated it" No, she didn't. The term comes from the 1963 English language version of Allgemeine Psychopathology published by UCP. I doubt Eilan was born then.
 * "isn't even found in the dictionary aggregator Dictionary.com" scroll down a bit
 * "And it's use is clever, in that "ununderstandable" takes some effort to be understandable." I had no trouble at all. Even without "snootiness on the part of the pedigree pushers". Where did that come from?
 * "I suspect you know and agree" Imagine your surprise. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever. I wasn't planning on researching the quoted bit in depth.  I think that the intent of using that awkward word by  translated it is what I describe. Dictionary.com: fair enough; must have been a transient database error. I tried both spellings there and got no results; now I do.  Your third point I don't understand [I'm resisting calling it un-understandable] since you're pulling unrelated material from two sections and running it together as if they're part of the same statement.  My point (as to the first part) was that "ununderstandable" is a double-take word, which stops the reader to consider whether it's a typo.  As to the second part, if you don't get that taking a fancy Frenchism that virtually no one really uses in English as a normal adjective, like nonpareil, and using it as one in a funky negation wouldn't probably be a commentary on the kind of people who would use such a word about their over-bred dogs, then I don't know what to tell you.  [shrug]   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I don't get your reaction here. Maybe I am reading too much into your edit count, but I would expect that for someone with your experience, arguing with sources rather than your own idiodyncrasies would be second nature. If your argument were article content, I would have deleted it with a comment of "WP:PROVEIT, seems to be WP:OR". Since it is not, and this is just about an edit comment, I don't see much happiness arising from this for either of us. Have a nice weekend despite, see you around. Paradoctor (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's just gotten weird and I think we've been talking past each other. I wanted to talk about "ununderstandable" being basically too strange for casual use here, and that general class of doubled-negative-prefix words being usually reserved for humorous and ironic purposes, while you wanted to talk about Jaspers' original wording and when it was translated (and to defend the word in question as more legit or general that I had been). I did err in not bothering to find out what those quotation details were, but it's because they were never important to what I was trying to convey.  Whether "ununderstandable" is an odd and unusual choice and not encyclopedically appropriate, or is perfectly clear and everyday English we should use with impunity, is a subjective assessment to which PROVEIT doesn't apply for either of us.  I was never trying to make the kind of argument one might advance at, say, Talk:Karl Jaspers about the content of that article, only about it not being helpful to use such a term in the context from which I removed it.  My attempt at an analogy with "non-nonpareil" appears to have just fallen completely flat.  So, simply a poor round of communication!  Have a good weekend, too, and may next week be a model of clarity. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Indexes
Why do we have indexes on Wikipedia?

By purpose, indexes are identical to categories, in that both alphabetically list articles related to some topic. I looked at past discussions at talk pages related to indexes, and only found a small discussion and a request for comment (both here) about their existence. I see few arguments and they don't convince me. I will discuss some of them in the next paragraph.

Generally, categories aren't ported to offline versions of Wikipedia. I would propose some kind of "printworthiness" for categories like we have for redirects. Some editors were giving arguments for having list articles, but indexes are not list articles (nor set index articles for that matter). Readers don't care much about categories, but if that is so, they don't care about indexes either. It is true that categories can't contain red links, while indexes can; well I thought that indexes wouldn't contain red links, so I'm asking you for help. Some said at the RfC that indexes are more editor-oriented, and I believe that makes them unsuitable for mainspace. Another argument was that indexes can have related changes tracked; however, categories can do that as well. w umbolo  ^^^  00:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I've never been a big fan of them. WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates provides that essentially redundant lists and categories (and navboxes) can exist simultaneously, since they're accessed differently, and appeal to different kinds of users, and have different features and capabilities (and limitations).  The index pages are a  of WP:Stand-alone list, they're just not typical of list articles (they are articles, and they are lists, so they're list articles).  If I recall correctly, indexes are intended to contain red-links, in that they're meant to be comprehensive of all major topics, even if we're missing some of them at present.  I have no idea if there's a rubric for determining which ones to list.  Maybe they go by WP:Wikipedia 1.0 categorizations?  Beats me.  I'm skeptical anyone's working on these pages any longer, other than very, very intermittently.  -wise, they're definitely not editor-oriented.  I think the comment may have predicated by the fact that our readers don't seem to make much use of them, but a small number of editors were really, really into creating them for a while.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RfA
I figured I'd reply to the part of your comment at RfA that you addressed to me, as it's not relevant to the RfA and so doesn't make sense to reply on the talk page. The answer is that no, I am not planning on running for RfA (as much as it would make my life easier), because I am acutely aware that I have negligible chances passing one. I came back from a year-long period of low activity (on a merely three-year-old account, at that) less than two months ago, my CSD and AfD records are both abysmal, and I have an otherwise very long history of doing reckless, stupid and/or poorly planned things. Nevertheless, I do, as always, appreciate feedback on my editing and behavior, and will keep your thoughts in mind going forward. I confess I was more irritated than I should have been when replying to Pldx1's comment. Thanks for your constructive criticism! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My habit of making some substantial edit and then a bunch of minor edits to clean it up, like I just did here, would probably also draw considerable scrutiny. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the other editor who asked if you were considering an RfA and was cranky about your perceived tone. My post was the one bolstering your point about misleading XfD stats (and then I ran in another direction to make some other point, about NAC as a better model, I think). As for "negligible chances", see above on this page at, heh. PS, about "re-edits": In that case, I'd be doomed. My most common edit summary is "typo", for fixing my own material.  I'm a bit "lysdexic", and often don't see the error even after four proofreadings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right; he did say that, I apparently can't read. I think I'll write that one off to the dysfunctional dopamine-reward pathways, given the time of day, although I certainly do stupid things like that anyway. Thanks though, and happy editing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all good. I usually blame lack of coffee.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move
Hi there. Thanks for the support vote here. Would be grateful if you could take a moment to look at a similar requested move here. Thanks! —  Film Fan  10:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would strongly advise not posting messages like this, per WP:CANVASS. It's okay to notify editors of related/similar discussions if you think they'd be interested, though doing so selectively tends to also lead to canvassing accusations.  When you do it on the basis of how someone previously !voted, it's definitely canvassing.  So, I'll sit this one out for propriety reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Never come across this in all my years. I am indeed trying to get more votes for the correct outcome but think people can follow a discussion without being swayed by a personal message. —  Film Fan  23:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's strange to me, but points out that the "WP has too many rules pages" complaint isn't easily dismissed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS – the consensus-accepted approach is to seek broader input across the board rather than selectively, to make the eventual outcome have more support. It's the discussion that determines which answer is "correct" for WP. The typical method is to neutrally notify relevant talk pages. In this case, perhaps WT:FILM, WT:MOSFILM, WT:MOSTITLES, and WT:TRANSLATION.  However, this isn't usually done (or we'd be drowning in such notices) for RMs, unless there's reason to think the case will have strong force as precedent, or it directly affects multiple articles already in being a big mass RM.  In this case, I wouldn't notify more broadly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #007, 31 May 2018
We have grown to 89 members.

This is the seventh issue of this newsletter. For previous issues, see our newsletter archive.


 * Welcome:

A warm welcome to our nearly one dozen new members...

Our new members include:
 * Evad37
 * Checkingfax
 * Grey Wanderer
 * Voceditenore
 * TestPAKISTAN
 * Godsy
 * Greatedits1
 * Charlesdrakew
 * Ww2censor
 * Simon Burchell
 * TheGridExe

Be sure to say "hi" and welcome them to the team.


 * The portal set has shrunk:

There were 1515 portals, but now we have 1475, because we speedy deleted a bunch of incompleted portals that had been sitting around for ages, that were empty shells or had very little content. Because they were speedied, they can be rebuilt from scratch without acquiring approval from WP:DRV.


 * Maintenance runs on the portals set have begun:

This is what we have been gearing up for: upgrading the portals en masse, using AWB.

More than half of the Associated Wikimedia sections have been converted to no longer use a subpage. This chore will probably be completed over the next week or two. Many thanks to the WikiGnome Squad, who have added an Associated Wikimedia section to the many geography-related portals that lacked one. The rest of the subjects await. :)

The next maintenance drive will be on the intro sections. Notices have gone out to the WikiProjects for which one or more portals fall within their subject scope. Once enough time has elapsed for them to respond (1 week), AWB processing of intro sections will begin.


 * Thank you, you:

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your part in the RfC. I went back and reread much of it. I believe your enthusiasm played a major part in turning the tide on there. I'm proud of all of you.

Why reread that mess, you ask?

To harvest ideas, and to keep the problems that need to be fixed firmly in mind. But, also to keep in touch. See below...


 * Thank yous all around:

I've contacted all of the other opposers of the RfC proposal to delete portals, to thank them for their support, and to assure them that their decision was not made in vain. I updated them on our activities, provided the link to the interviews about this project in the Signpost, pointed out our newsletter archive so they can keep up-to-date with what we are doing, and I invited them all to come and have a look-see at our operations (on our talk page).


 * Sockpuppet, and reverting his work:

It so happened that one of our members was a sockpuppet: JLJ001. According to the admin who blocked him, he was a particularly tricky long term abuser. This is a weird situation, since the user was quite helpful. He will be missed.

This has been somewhat disruptive, because admins are doing routine deletions of the pages (portals, templates, etc.) he created, and reversion of his edits (I don't know if they will be reverting all of them). Please bear with them, as they are only doing what is best in the long run.

The following pages have been deleted by the admins so far, that I know of:
 * Portal:Plymouth
 * Portal:Bedfordshire
 * Portal:Suffolk
 * Portal:Norfolk
 * User:JLJ001/tag
 * Template:Non-standard portal flag
 * Template:Portal flag


 * Automation so far, section by section...:


 * Intro – Transclude lead excerpt
 * Selected article – Transclude random excerpt
 * In the news – Transclude selected current events
 * Associated Wikimedia –
 * Categories –


 * Automatic article alerts is up and running:

Automatic article alerts are now featured on the project page.

Some super out-of-date entries kept showing up on there, so posting it on the Project page was delayed. Thanks to Evad37 and AfroThundr for providing solutions on this one. Evad37 adjusted the workflow settings per Article alerts/Subscribing, to make sure only the appropriate page types show up. AfroThundr removed the tags from the old entries that caused them to keep showing up in the article alerts.


 * Other things that could use some automation:

Noyster pointed out that it would be nice to automate the updating of the portals section at the Community bulletin board.

Another major component of the portal system is the main list of portals, at Portal:Contents/Portals. How would we go about automating the updating of that?

Please post your ideas on the WikiProject's talk page. Thank you.

Keep in mind that we have already speedy deleted almost all of the nearly empty portals, which can be rebuilt without approval whenever it is convenient to do so. Other portals should be completed if at all possible rather than delete them through MfD (which requires approval from Deletion review to rebuild).
 * Deletion discussion survivors:


 * Portal:Juanes – see the discussion

(Current deletion discussions are posted on our WikiProject page).


 * Portals needing repair:


 * Portal:Toys


 * Wrapping up:

There's still more, but it will have to wait until next issue.

Until then, see ya around the project. &mdash; The Transhumanist  20:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * For recovering potentially salvageable portals because they were the work of the now-blocked sock, you could probably use undeletion requests to move them to your userspace and see if they're worth working on and restoring (if not, just ).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, I need to make a list of the admins in the Wikiproject. Thank you for the idea.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

:-)
A wonderful edit summary. It brings a smile to my Friday - as does the yawning cat in your talk page notes message. Many thanks and I hope you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mock my own typos pretty often. The cat's supposed be smirking! Heh. PS: there's some cat-face back story at .  I forget when I started using a cat; I'd been using various ASCII-art faces for years, and had a little stockpile of them somewhere ... User:SMcCandlish/sandbox4.  Some turned out not to render unless you had a huge Unicode font.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I see now. A smirk is as good as a yawn :-) Thanks for the link to the faces. Lots of fun. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk
 * Yeah, sometimes I had to take a break from article work, policy arguments, etc. E-doodles. PS: Did I detect a Monty Python reference?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:MOS:THE
Wikipedia:MOS:THE, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:MOS: and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:MOS:THE during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

B2C
Hi Stanton,

I just found interesting posts by you, mentioning me, at User_talk:Born2cycle. I don't see anything objectionable, but am yet to read it at leisure. You always have an interesting perspective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not "interesting" as in the old Chinese curse. LOL. PS: Please don't take my observations there about a couple of your old posts as  at you; the point was to establish that the entire discussion was heated, and it wasn't "everyone was having a party and then B2c threw bombs into the room" (and I'm the first to admit some of my own heated talk-page posts at various RMs and other debates have been "imperfectly collegial"). The more I look into that case, the more disturbed I am by the outcome (even if the target can be a discomfort in the glutes sometimes). It's not right for an AE case, seeking DS that are explicitly inapplicable to the forums in question, to conclude with DS being applied, but not labeled DS, to institute a block and T-ban that were not authorized by any ArbCom case's DS, any ArbCom decision, or any community decision at ANI or elsewhere.  They just literally came out of thin air.  As soon as AE collectively realized it had no jurisdiction, this should have been dropped, or taken to either ANI or ArbCom (probably ARCA rather than RfArb).

Portals WikiProject update #008, 7 June 2018
The WikiProject now has 92 participants, including 16 admins.

 Welcome 

A warm welcome to the newest members of the team:
 * Keith D
 * RL0919

Be sure to say hi.

 Congrats 

Pbsouthwood has just gotten through the grueling RfA process to become a Wikipedia administrator. Be sure to congratulate him.

The reason he went for it was: "For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above. The amount of work is expected to keep me busy for some time. I am primarly a content creator and contributor to policy discussions, but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort zone."

 New feature: Picture slideshow 

Evad37 has figured out a way to let the user flip through pictures without purging the page. Purging is awkward because there is an intermediary confirmation screen that you have to click on "yes". In the new picture slideshow section, all you have to do is click on the  to go to the next picture or   to instantly show the previous feature. The feature also shuffles the pictures when the page is initiated, so that they are shown in a different order each time the user visits the page (or purges it).

It is featured in Portal:Sacramento, California. Check it out to the right.

Keep in mind that the feature is a beta version. Please share your comments on how to refine this feature, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals.

 The one-page portal has been achieved 

We now have a one-page portal design. It isn't fully automated, nor is it even fully semi-automated, as there are still some manually filled-in areas. But it no longer requires any subpages in portal space, and that is a huge improvement. For example, Portal:Sacramento, California utilizes the one-page design concept. While is employs heavy use of templates, it does not have any subpages of its own.

 I commend you for your teamwork 

This is the most cooperative team I've ever seen. With a strong spirit of working together to get an important job done. Kudos to you.

''' In conclusion... '''

There's more. A lot more. But it will have to wait until next issue, but you don't have to wait. See what's going on at the WikiProject's talk page. &mdash; The Transhumanist  02:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Gurrrbbels
Contuing from where we left off at Help talk:IPA/English:

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Forgot the ping, not that this is Big Serious Stuff. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I use the full German /ø/ for the German ones, due to German class, and this is surely rather pretentious. (I probably don't always do it when I'm not thinking about it; I've probably uttered something more like "I remember reading G[oʊ]del, Escher, Bach back in the day" more than once). Hearing "G[əɹ]tə" for Goete makes my skin crawl.  For lack of knowing much about French and its slightly different sound for oe, I would be inclined to do French words as if German for that character string.  A French-fluent friend said my attempts at French pronunciation were funny (in other ways). I wouldn't do this Germanization for a name like Schoenberg if the subject was North American, but use Sch[oʊ]nberg, as most of them do themselves.  For milieu, I'm "broken": I picked up that word around age 10 from playing D&D (the Dungeon Master's Guide used it a lot) and still pronounce it mil[joʊ] which is what we all guessed was how to say it.  Frankly, I have an unreasonable prejudice against spoken French and the French accent in English that I've never been able to explain (especially since it's supposed to be "sexy"; I'd much rather hear a Welsh or Scottish lass coo at me), so I generally don't try to put any Frenchification on French loanwords, other than, as with most Americans, my fillet ends in [ei] (I don't drop the r from foyer, though).  Peugeot comes out of my mouth as just /pjuʒoʊ/, almost dismissively. >;-) I took three years of Spanish, and lean toward proper pronunciation of snippets of it in English but without whacking the English ear too hard (e.g., I don't clip the consonants of all their aspiration, and do nothing to assimilated words and names like "San Francisco" and "burrito").  Anyway, I'm not a representative sample of much of anything, since I learned to read and write in England and had an Buckinhamshire accent until I was about 7, then the family moved back to 'Murica.  I was habitually using -our/-re spellings well into high school, until a hostile "English" teacher started giving me bad grades for it.  People have noticed before that my spelling here may wander depending on what ENGVAR is most apparent in the thread. And my parents has [US] Southern but different accents (California-influenced New Mexican, and deep, deep Mississippi; one said "lehsure time" the other "leesure", etc.  I also worked hard on consciously losing much of my Southern inflection, and then I lived for a while in Ireland, then Canada.  Have lived on both US coasts and in the middle for long stretches.  And I watch at least as much British TV as American (and have watched lots of the former since I was teenager and we started getting Doctor Who and BBC nature shows on cable, finally – felt like coming come.  I tend to pick up aspects of the local pronunciation automatically and much faster than usual; e.g., I lost my British accent completely only about a month after moving back to the US, and in adulthood was often mistaken (only momentarily) for a local in Dublin after only about a month there).  So, it's all a mixed bag in my case.
 * Oh wow... You're a total mess, huh? Haha. That's what makes language interesting! I love these kinds of insights (almost literally "sights into others' linguistic inner world"). Thanks for taking the time to share!
 * I'm certainly with you on fillet and foyer.
 * I agree that I've kind of reacted against the stereotype of French being sexy or romantic, and I now even enjoy pushing my Francophone friends' buttons by reminding them that it's the most divergent and "bizarre" of Latin's little children languages (especially pronunciationwise). Wolfdog (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the fact that it's the most corrupted from Latin, in most ways, of all the Romance languages has something to do with it for me, but part of it's also just the laziness of it – all the ending-dropping, and the mid-word dropping (especially of s, e.g. Étienne, étoile, étrange). And all that nasalization. I joke-not-joking that it's Vulgar Latin turned really, really vulgar by Norse invaders and their commingling Gaulish vassals.  Should've stuck with Gothic and Norse!  "Qu'est-ce que c'est?" is pretty much unforgivable: six words squeezed to three syllables at most, and crazily redundant ('What is this that this is?') to ask 'What's this?'. Why not just *Qu'est ce?  But in the end, I dunno.  Maybe what really happened is I had a mean French nanny and have repressed the memory. Ha ha.

Statement for the record
After two-years of re-litigation of a topic ban, another editor was short-term blocked (against my urging to not block), and their topic ban was kept in place, and a new one-way interaction ban imposed against making further wild accusations against me (I'm on this editor's dirt-list for having provided much of the evidence that resulted in the topic ban, though I did not open that case myself). This was unfortunate enough, though the TBAN and the IBAN are surely necessary, since the editor used every appeal venue to focus on me and my nefarious motives and wicked deeds rather than the reason the community, its admins, and its arbitrators were imposing sanctions the other direction.

Rather than reflect on what led to this and how to eventually get out from under this cloud, the editor simply resumed accusations, and repeatedly claimed to be in fear of their life or safety because I might "come after" them to make a physical assault and (I couldn't make this up – see diffs below) that I'd done so before, and also predicted that I would use the user's own talk page to "gravedance" and slander them while they were away, that the topic ban could somehow result in this editor being sued or arrested (for what, I don't know):, , , , ,   This string of odd aspersions – interrupted with multiple admins' warnings to no avail – promptly resulted in an indefinite block with talk-page access revoked.

I have interaction with this person off-site, not even by the "Email this user" feature, and I don't roll that way on-site. Nor anyone, even if they wanted to; let's quote directly from WP:Banning policy:

We have not interacted on-site for almost a year, other than that over the last couple of days I've responded to accusations (about which I was not notified as required) made by this party at WP:AE in the latest in a long-series of noticeboard actions relating to this this user. The entire situation is depressing, because the editor is productive outside of the topic-banned area, which I have been saying all along at the dozen or so noticeboard actions over the last 4 years about this editor and that topic.

The few things I've left at this user's talk page between the original topic ban stuff and when I stopped posting there at all, last year, have been conciliatory. They were rebuffed with hostility despite being direct responses to that editor's own demands. Whether I resent the implication is immaterial (I'm not very easily offended); but I, and all the evidence presented in all these noticeboard actions makes it clear they are baseless accusations. If I were having any contact with this person off site, through some means, I would expect ArbCom to be made aware of it within the hour and to act on it harshly.

(though I actually support an un-block after some time for reflection, because the TBAN/IBAN combination should prevent any further disruption). I've made this statement because any random person looking into the editor's most recent block is going to see all these evidence-free but very serious accusations, and I'm arguably not in a position to refute them on the page where they appeared. Nor do they appear to qualify for WP:Oversight, though maybe for WP:Revision deletion, about which I'm enquiring.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments thereon

 * Any administravitorialistic verdict on those diffs? I would as soon have them go away, and my post above just get immediately stuffed into an archive page as old news.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I showed them to an oversighter, and we both agreed that they're not eligible for suppression or rev del.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well. I would at least think that the one that implies I've physically assaulted this person before would be RevDel'able. But I guess the rants are absurd enough on their face.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything, it demonstrates this user's behavior and can be scrutinized by the community if needed in the future. I don't see this being used against you at all - it clearly isn't true. I've had users call me crazy weird things and accuse me of ridiculous things like this numerous times. I wouldn't worry about it :-).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If a character reference is of any use here, I just want to say that I have never felt that Sandy McCandlish might stalk and attack me. EEng 23:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's just because you've haven't been trying to revert my obsessive original research about the Bolsheviks' connections to Pokémon. ;-P   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit frightened that anyone could even concieve of such a connection... humor, humor! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On an actually serious note, I once did an essay on The Lion King as conservative propaganda. A generation later, I stand by it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At the opposite end of the spectrum - my high school English teacher was amazed to discover that Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian Revolution. She swore that she did not know that before I did a book report on the book... given her general level of clue... I can actually believe it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow.  Secondary-school credentials don't take much.  I had a 9th-grade English teacher who was convinced "spatial" was pronounced spatt-ee-ull. I kid you not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was bemused at how that user's behavior went off the rails after the block. I had some private correspondence with them in which I encouraged them to find a way forward that would be acceptable to the community. Unfortunately I believe they saw it as a request to "plead guilty" even though they didn't perceive any issues with their behavior over time. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Predictable, given everything the user said in all these rounds of appeals. They're convinced (or pretend to be convinced – many of us are sure this is an act) that any concession to anything is a concession to everything, including to things already retracted, and that no one will tell her what she's actually done wrong or what she should do/say to get out from under the cloud, despite having been told all of these things about 100 times now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note to self: Much of the circular-argument venting by the editor in question has been predicated on the idea that I'd somehow violated AE or ArbCom rules about evidence presentation and length limits, by letting AE and ARBCOM know about an incompletely-prepared and -pruned evidence pile I'd amassed in a userspace page (with the intent of eventually using it in a WP:RFARB, which ended up not being necessary because someone else pre-emptively took the same user to WP:AE). Here is further proof that's not the case. ArbCom almost unanimously accepted a case against an admin/crat (who resigned under a cloud in response, and likely would have had the tools removed if they had not), after a pointer to precisely the same kind of long diff pile that was not yet ready for the Evidence phase of that case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Undo to your recent edit
Sorry about that, accidentally clicked undo when i meant to click thanks! XD

Have redone the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymorph self (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's all good. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Goliath
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goliath. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Fake MoS shortcuts
At Redirects for discussion a rather new editor is claiming shortcuts with the MoS acronym routinely link to help pages are other Wikipedia pages that are not part of our policies or guidelines. Do we normally mislead our editors like this..... in the middle of a debate we don't link a fake MOS shortcuts thus implying  that it's a guideline when it's not do we?--Moxy (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably not cool. Every "MOS:" (or – if we end up keeping them – "MoS:" or "Mos:") shortcut should go to an "Wikipedia:Manual of Style[/...]" page, with few potential exceptions. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
 * Draft MoS pages that are in actual use but haven't been completed in some part of them and still lack a formal WP:PROPOSAL process. The two I know of are MOS:GLOSSARIES and MOS:ORGANISMS, both in active use guidelines for over 5 years.
 * A page that is no longer part of MoS but is an actual guideline; this can happen because of a rename, split, or merge (e.g. WP:SAL is a combined style and content guideline, and only one section of it part of MOS; and MOS:INFOBOX needs to be split into a content guideline on infoboxes, and small section in the main MoS page on the few bits in MOS:INFOBOX that are actually style matters, since most if it's content not style).
 * Perhaps to a part of WP:AT or a naming conventions page, or maybe even a "Help:" page – if something is often mistaken for MoS material, MoS itself [or a subpage thereof] has no good link target for the shortcut. However, this is better handled by finding or making such a target, and using a hatnote to point to the non-MoS page that's also relevant.
 * a WP:PROJPAGE that is a wikiproject's style essay – as long as it doesn't actually claim to be part of MoS or a guideline, and isn't "advertising" the MoS shorcut, MoS itself has no good target for the redirect.
 * That fourth one is really iffy, actually, as it can still be misleading. Ultimately, probably all the "MOS:" shortcuts would go to MoS pages, because that makes sense and it's what the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace was authorized for by community consensus.
 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science
The feedbag request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom nom, feedback, nom nom nom ...  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Classical music readers
I think that removing (Chopin) from Chopin waltzes is a bit over legalistic. We remove band names because pop editors get furious if another band has the same song, and see pop songs as a competition for Top 10 placing, but classical music readers aren't like that. They are pluralistic non-competetive human beings and can accept that waltzes were written by different composers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I care much, as long as a) we end up with a consistent system at least within the classical category, and b) we aren't using 3–4 disambiguations per title just because some early classical-focused writers at WP didn't understand our titling system and tried to make every article title serve the descriptive/defining purpose of an entire lead section. This may need to be cleaned up in stages.  I actually expected the RM in question to fail as an RM per se, but to serve as a pot in which to stir some ideas about which way to take it all later, and it's serving that purpose.  Wouldn't be the first time.  See, e.g., my doomed mass-decapitalization of all dance-related article titles at once about two years ago, which teased out which ones (on what grounds) might require separate RMs; the "generic" ones are now uncontroversially moving to lower-case in batches, while the ones people are likely to squabble about, predicated on various specialized-style fallacy excuses, can be taken one at a time later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well they like it, why not. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with titles, real names that is. Waltz, however, is no title but generic, and waltzes were written by several composers, and some of those used op. to distinguish, while others perhaps a key, and some readers will know the same piece by key, others by op. number. Is it really unbearable to have all three dabs (key, number, composer) in a title, to help readers finding a piece? Another thing worth considering is the number before Waltz (or whatever), which may be 16 or 3. Should that count as part of any title? Four Last Songs, yes, that's a well-known group, and published as such, but who will know how many normally? Have you looked at Mozart's masses, with all their numbers and nicknames (example: Mass in C major, K. 167 "in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis"), and many in C major ;) - There was a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have procedures for this; classical isn't a uniquely different case. Settle on a disambiguation system, not three systems at once in the same title (unless the first and the second still produce ambiguity). We have WP:CONCISE for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's add an infobox! EEng 09:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBINFOBOX3: The Reckoning – coming to the big screen this summer!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Compositions typically have an infobox, ;) - When an article is called just Sixteen Waltzes, will the infobox make a search function know it's by Brahms, and show that (but none by Chopin) when looking for "Brahms waltz"? - Anyway, going to add one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like The Reckoning is already in the post-production phase. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the law essay only afterwards ;) - the day I have Nazi on the Main page. Seriously: I don't think infobox wars exist (possibly never existed, - perhaps before my time), but the concept seems attractive to some. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alex Jones
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Portals WikiProject update #009, 15 June 2018
Don't mind that box to the right. We'll be talking about that later, below.

''' Almost done... '''

With the portals upgrades?

No. :)

What is almost done is the updating of the main list of portals!

There are 23 portals left to be listed.

Kudos to the WikiGnome Squadron, for spearheading this.

Once it is fully updated, we need to keep it up to date. When you complete a portal, remember to add it to Portal:Contents/Portals.

Concerning portal upgrades, we are working on those section-by-section...

 Associated Wikimedia section conversion task complete 

The Associated Wikimedia sections of the entire set of portals have been upgraded. These are now handled on each portal base page (bypassing the previously used corresponding subpages), using the Wikimedia for portals template rather than reiterated copied/pasted code.

So, to be more accurate on reporting upgrade progress, that's one section down (for the whole set of portals), with (about) nine sections to go. (Skipping curated portals, regarding custom content sections, of course).

 Further section conversions (using AWB) 

Work is underway on converting Portals' introduction sections, and the categories sections.

If you would like to help, see WikiProject Portals and WikiProject Portals

 Further section conversions (by hand) 

Work has also started with converting selected picture sections to picture slideshow sections. See WikiProject Portals.

 Quality rating system for portals under development 

Currently, there is no quality rating for portals: in the Portals WikiProject box on each portals' talk page, it just says "Portal". But times are a changin'. Quality assessment is on the way, and you can help. See the discussion.

 What's coming: excerpt slideshows 

Evad37 has figured out a way to apply the picture slideshow feature to displaying article excerpts (now you can check out the provided box above). :) This allows us to bypass page purging to see the next selection, and you can even click through them rather quickly. Currently, the wikicode for doing this for article excerpts is a bit eye-boggling, and so we are looking into simplifying it. A streamlined version may be just around the corner.

Note that this is a prototype, not ready for widespread use. Click on the box in between the lesser than and greater than signs, to see what I mean. It was meant for pictures, and so the thumbnail feature doesn't apply to article prose very well. I've presented it even though it isn't ready, to show the direction portal development is heading. See the discussion.

 Wow 

I'm amazed at how rapidly portals are evolving. And we're still within a single generation of portal technological evolution. Imagine what they might be in 2 or 3 more generations of developments. Pretty soon, portals will be able to shake your hand. :)   &mdash; The Transhumanist   11:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Portal guidelines-related...
You mentioned you were interested in content guidelines for Portals.

I thought you might be interested in knowing that some issues pertaining to this are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/General.

I'd be interested in reading your ideas about what constitutes a quality portal. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   09:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some general-overview comments and some specifically about MOS:PORTALS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Humane Society of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constrictor ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Humane_Society_of_the_United_States check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Humane_Society_of_the_United_States?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WUPV
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WUPV. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

moe. (band) page move
Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should not canvass editors you think will be receptive to your preference. (And I'm not; I would happily see this article move to normal-English names like K. D. Lang.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 28, April – May 2018  Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Bib1Ref
 * New partners
 * Rock's Backpages
 * Invaluable
 * Termsoup
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
 * Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you reverse your undiscussed actions
Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/FAQ. The capitalisation is controversial and your move reflects neither the current editorial consensus on sources, nor past discussions. It was also undiscussed. You've reverted another editor without raising it first at the appropriate talk page. [2009, I apologise]. Yes the article is a mess, but no, not a good move; and not done in a good way. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:ISMCAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY policy would disagree (thus so would WP:CONLEVEL policy). If you're sure all those policies and guidelines would be overruled somehow to continue over-capitalizing – against the very guideline intended prevent this kind of over-capitalization – feel free to list it WP:RM/TR for reversion, and I'll just open a regular RM about it.  PS: I agree "the capitalisation is controversial"; it would have to be, given that we have multiple guidelines saying to  do that with words like "communism", so removing the capitalisation is the correct course of action.  Tiny WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cliques do not get to make up their own "rules" in FAQs to hold other editors at bay; see also WP:OWN and WP:EDITING policies (and WP:VESTED, a broader community interpretation of their applicability).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your actions are being discussed on the article talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than argue about it, I've simply opened the RM discussion, since the article needs to stop using the biased word "regimes" in its title, too. There's no point, per WP:Common sense and WP:NOT, in temporarily reverting one title to another when both of them are WP:NPOV violations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It gets worse, it should never have survived its AFDs. Given the amount of heat over light the page has produced, it isn't BUREAUCRACY, so much as "I know what is about to happen anyway, so ought to do it myself because I'm not going to push for an outcome or be emotionally engaged." Fifelfoo (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I quite agree your AfD assessment, but I think the core content has developed enough that much of it is salvageable if split into, e.g. Mass killings by the Soviet Union, etc. (or something like that; "under the Soviet government", whatever). As for whether the gladiatorial pit going on over there want to run around screaming and hacking because I changed a character, I really don't care.  RM is a site-wide process for a reason (namely, to break "local consensus" stonewalls), and this needed an RM anyway because of the PoV title, capitalization aside.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Continued appreciation
Even though our exchange at Talk:Ellipsis degenerated into fruitless head-butting, please be aware that, as a reader, editor, and monetary contributor to Wikipedia, I am grateful for your many contributions, including your advice, in December 2017, concerning my edits to Dash. — Peter Brown (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and it's all good! If come across as a forceful arguer, please don't take it personally. It's just a habit developed from a decade-plus as a professional activist.  I don't always successfully moderate it here, though I'm careful to not go  on people. I try to be critical of arguments and rationales not individuals; in a month or 6 or 12 no one will care or remember about most of this stuff, anyway. On that particular matter, the reason I'm being adamant about it is that if we make "use the same divergent style as these sources" exceptions in one case, people will demand it in every case they have a personal interest in.  We've learned that the hard way.  We would almost certainly have tens of thousands more articles (and more B-class or better articles) if all the time and energy people spend fighting about style were spent on developing content and just following the style guide. The entire problem with any style manual and article title scheme (at any publisher) is that it is basically impossible for any line item in it to have agreement from 100% of people, nor for any one person to agree 100% with every line item.  Consequently – and especially at a site where all contributors feel empowered to "make their mark" – there will inevitably be attempts to change the spec to suit someone's preferences.  If I had my own way, I would have changed at least 50 things in MoS and related pages (AT, naming conventions); but I don't get my way, and over time I've seen that the value in MoS isn't in being "correct" (a subjective notion in a language with no official standards) but in being stable and applied consistently. It gives readers a more seamless experience across the site, and it eliminates the majority of editor-on-editor style fighting.  Style matters are mostly arbitrary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/English
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we actually recognize Maltese English as a variety for articles?
EEng 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely not. It's like Jamaican English, etc. There's not formal, written register that is distinct from general British/Commonwealth English. I truly fucking hate all these WP:OWN-ish "ENGVAR stamp" templates people are making up and sticking on articles they want to "police" to contain their favored local colloquialisms.  I've tried to resolve it twice, both cases with "no consensus", so will have to keep at it.  I may just try TfDing several of the templates directly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then you're needed over at the talk page, and don't call me Shirley. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop taking amphetamines."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the much needed laugh...
Here. I almost snorted Diet Coke all over the table. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I was tempted. You know what an "RFTM, dude" I'm capable of posting. >;-) But I actually just went thru this sort of thing with two others yesterday and it gets a bit tedious.  Plus I'm sure it's tedious for to see for everyone who already understands this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at SMC, growing some self-control. Or some laziness. ;) --Izno (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Or it could just be a crafty part of my sinister machinations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously you just sneakily infested me with it... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to The Cabal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quantico (season 3)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quantico (season 3). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Full dates
I probably don't have the time/attention span to start an RFC... GiantSnowman 07:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I opened a thread (though not an RfC, at least not yet) at WT:MOSBIO.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noticed, many thanks! GiantSnowman 13:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NP. The "someone" wasn't meant to be cagey; I've just learned from WP:ARBATC to avoid any show of "personalizing style disputes".  The proposal stands on its own merits regardless whose idea it was.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of fictional cats in literature ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_fictional_cats_in_literature check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_fictional_cats_in_literature?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Mouser
 * Sharking ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sharking check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sharking?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Pool shark

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
I think I'm OK at not addressing the contributor (most of the time) - but what I am really need to learn is how to keep things short, to the point, and to cut off reply loops - reply once or at most twice.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a problem in that area, too. Maybe most of us do.  I think WP:SYSTEMGAMING types exploit this human behavior quirk on purpose. It's why we have WP:IDHT, but there's not actually an enforcement mechanism, really, against someone employing proof by assertion and argumentum ad nauseam unless and until it just rises to a generalized WP:DE / WP:TE level.  Consequently, people trying to just WP:WIN have a marked tendency to recycle the same argument over and over as if no one addressed it, and to ignore refutations or straw man them, and do whatever else it takes to never budge on their anti-consensus position.  It's unfortunate, but if we haven't resolved it by 2018, we probably never will.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Hatnote inline
Template:Hatnote inline has been nominated for merging with Template:Hatnote. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Questionable Cause
Palm slap to my own forehead. Great correction, I was rushed and missed it as the top line. Thanks. Squatch347 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was the one who missed argument from fallacy right at the top of the page. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Now with "effect" vs "affect" I think I might be going senile. (It also means you are in the lead with only 1 mistake, I've now got two ;-)) Again, thank you for the catch! Squatch347 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought that one was my error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah's Ark
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah's Ark. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS Titles
There's a discussion at WP:Main_Page/Errors you could probably shed some light on regarding the capitalization of Hetman. My reading (which I freely admit isnt something I have indepth knowledge) of the MOS is that as it is used in the OTD blurb for tomorrow it shouldnt be capitalized, and that the article itself has over-capitalized it in places. Your opinion would be welcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Confirmed I was reading the MOS page correctly as well, which is always good to know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's one of the most difficult aspects for some people, e.g. the difference between "Gerald Ford was President of the United States" and "Gerald Ford was a president of the United States". People just see "but I wanna capitalize!", and don't see "this is a title of office, that is a category, and they just happen to share most of the same characters".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation arbitration amendment request declined
Hi SMcCandlish. The Article titles and capitalisation arbitration amendment request filed 21 June 2018 has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #010, 30 June 2018
We've grown to 94 participants.

A warm welcome to dcljr and Kpgjhpjm.


 * Rating system for portals

We are in the process of developing a rating system specifically for portals, as the quality assessment scheme for articles does not apply to portals. It is coming along nicely. Your input would be very helpful. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/General.


 * Better than a barnstar

One of our participants got involved with this WikiProject through interest in how the new generation of portals would be handled in WP's MOS (Manual of Style). It didn't take long before he got sucked in deeper. This has given him an opportunity to look around, and so, he has made an assessment of this WikiProject's operations:

"I'm quite frankly really impressed and inspired by what's happening here. If you'd asked me a year ago if I thought portals should just be scrapped as a failed, dragged-out experiment, I would have said 'yes'. This planning and the progress toward making it all practical is exemplary of the wiki spirit, in particular of a happy service-to-readers puppy properly wagging its technological and editorial tail instead of the other way around, and without 'drama'. It's also one of the few examples I've seen in a long time of a new wikiproject actually doing something useful and fomenting constructive activity (instead of acting as a barrier to participation, and a canvassing/ownership farm for PoV pushers). Kudos all around. — SMcCandlish"

Congratulations, everyone. Keep up the great work.


 * Slideshow development

We've run into a glitch with slideshows: they don't work on mobile devices.

Initially, we will need to explore options that allow portals to have slideshows without adversely affecting mobile viewers. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design.

Eventually, we may need another way to do slideshows. If we do go this route, and I don't see why we wouldn't, then (user configurable) automatic slideshows also become a possibility.


 * TemplateStyles RfC passed

Once implemented, this will allow editors to create and edit cascading style sheets for use with templates. This will expand what we can do with portals. For more detail, see mw:Extension:TemplateStyles and TemplateStyles.


 * Automation effort

We've run into an obstacle using Lua-based selective transclusion: Lua is incapable (on Wikipedia) of reading in article names from categories. Because of this, we'll need to seek other approaches for fully automating the Selected article section. We are exploring sources other than categories, and other technologies besides Lua.

Speaking of using other sources, the template Transclude list item excerpt collects list items from a specified page, or from a section of that page, and transcludes the lead from a randomly selected link from that list. Courtesy of Certes. So, if you use this in a portal, and if the template specifies a page or section serviced by JL-Bot, you've now got yourself an automatically updated section in the portal. JL-Bot provides links to featured content and good articles, by subject.

What is "fully automated"? When you create a portal using a creation template, and the portal works thereafter without editor intervention, the portal is fully automated. That is, the portal is supported by features that fetch new content. If you have to add new article names every so often for it to display new content, then it is only semi-automated.

Currently, the Selected article section is semi-automated, because it requires that an editor supplies the names of the various articles for which excerpts are (automatically) displayed. For examples, look at the wikisource code of Portal:Reptiles, Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization, and Portal:Reference works.

So far, 3 sections are fully automatable: the introduction section, the categories section, and the Associated Wikimedia section.


 * Where is all this heading?

Henry.

Or some other name.

Eventually, the portal department will be a software program. And we won't have to do anything (unless we want to). Not even tell it what portals to create (unless we want to). It will just do it all (plus whatever else we want it to do). And we will of course give it good manners, and a name.

But, that is a few years off.

Until then, building portals is still (partially) up to us. &mdash; The Transhumanist  13:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)