User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 22

=September 2008=

Cats:Booian people by Fooian descent
Hi there. You ve participated in earlier renaming nominations that I ve made and I wondering if you could weigh in on the most recent discussion spread over Aug. 28th and 29th at WP:Cats for discussion Regards, Mayumashu (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, but please use the multi-cat nomination process instead of repetitive mess like that... —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey SMcCandlish! Long time no see; last time I saw you I think we were planning on getting all the in line weasel-word templates sorted out (I see that finally worked out - for the most part). How are you doing?-- daniel folsom  01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; been really busy for the earlier part of the year, then in .mx for a month and a half, but back in the saddle again. The weasel stuff: It's not really resolved to my satisfaction, but I can live with it for now. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S.: You might be the first user to not put a message below my horrible archive system :); P.P.S.: I had to disagree with you on Citations missing - however I do think that we should reword Template:unreferenced and then delete citations missing, but that's not the proposal.-- daniel folsom  01:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't much care how it works out, as long as the confusing overlap is resolved, and way more importantly Citations missing stops trying to serve two masters, which is really confusing and makes even accurate categorization impossible (is this article flagged because it was a WP:V issue or a WP:CITE issue?) It's not about that template in particular, just its documentation's wording and the multi-template overlap. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

When removing talkheader, check for archives
Hello there! I noticed you removed talkheader from Template talk:Fact. Please note that one of the functions provides is a list of archive subpages. It was serving that purpose on Template talk:Fact. So, if you remove, please check for the existence of archives, and add a suitable template for that, such as archives. I've done so on that page. Cheers! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh. I forgot about that. Sorry! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Small question...
With regard to "location" in Cite comic, that is related to the business address of the publisher at the time of publication, not the location where the material is actually printed right?

- J Greb (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. It's the same as in all the other Cite-family templates, and in all standards (MLA, ALA, Harvard, etc.) for paper-based research citation. It's included principally because two parts of the world may have a publishing company by the same name, but also because the location can given hints as to PoV (e.g. a British book published about colonial India is very likely to say considerably different things than one published in India). Anyway, I doubt in most cases that where the actual physical printing occurred could be reliable determined. :-)  Might be good to clarify the language, though (consistently across all of these templates). And clarify that multi-located publishers ("Smith Publications - New York / London / Munich") should simply use the main one, or if that cannot be determined, then the first one, but not all of them, lest we bore our readers to death with publisher trivia. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain this edit
Please explain the above linked edit. At first glance, it appears as an insult to either me or the editor I was referring to.--Rockfang (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's called outright shock. I cannot believe that someone (you, namely) actually said that 5% of all WP bio articles "doesn't sound like a lot" of articles, in quixotic defense of your snowballing TFD nomination, when even 0.25 seconds worth of reflection would have indicated that is a stunningly large number of articles, totally beyond manual human ability to repair, and which even for a bot would be weeks or months of churning, non-stop edits that would inevitably lead to massive numbers of errors that would have to be manually detected and repaired by humans.  Clearer, I hope.  "Insult"?  No.  Gobsmacked astonishment, yes. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: For all I know, maybe I'm overreacting, and tomorrow I'll feel that way about it and profusely apologize for not recognizing that at the time and understanding the validity of your perspective. If so, chalk it up to a brain short-circuit or something. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I see your point on the 5% thing.  I guess it is just a matter of perspective.  In my opinion, relatively speaking, the ~30k articles out of ~557k of all bio articles isn't a lot if the 5% is an accurate figure.--Rockfang (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability comments
I wanted to point this out here instead of cluttering up that RFC any more. I notice that your concerns with the SNG focus on the exclusionary side, in that you seem very worried about people writing SNGs that would prohibit things allowed by the GNG. What are your feelings in the other direction? If someone writes an SNG that says "All named bridges are inherently notable", does that permit articles on named bridges that don't meet the GNG?Kww (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because GNG/WP:N is a wikipedia-wide guideline with massive consensus, and WikiProjectish "guidelines" rarely represent a consensus of more than a handful. There are exceptions, like the general bio, books, and music notability guidelines, but they (by definition, pretty much) represent a smaller, more localized consensus than the larger, WP-wide one, so the former cannot trump the latter. WP:CONSENSUS says this pretty clearly in two different places. To me, it is a non-concern. If, say, WP:CUENOT were to be edited to say that any person who has ever played a game of pool for money, and can be reliably sourced as having done so, is automatically notable, the rest of WP would laugh, since obviously there would not be multiple, non-trivial, independent instances of media coverage. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidelines on the Tennis Talk
Hate to bring you back here, but Tennis expert's point is valid regarding the name of some sponsored events being the only heavily documented name of those events. In talking about player performance tables, if we were to eliminate certain common sponsored names, people might miss the info they're looking for, as they might miss the tournament since they don't know the non-sponsored name. I would think readers being able to easily find information they're looking for should be a reason to possibly ignore all rules if that's where consensus lies. Gnowor (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's the only name, then it's the only name. The point isn't "hate sponsor laden names, for they are the work of the Devil", but rather, "prefer non-sponsor-laden names as more neutral and less likely to 'break' over time". Agree in part with the rationale in your final sentence; if an event is not commonly known by its generic name, then having the more common but spammy name could arguably be good in the table. But I don't think this generalizes to an "always use both" maxim.  Partly for the same reasons you give yourself, in a sense: If an event has had 5 different major sponsors over the last two decades, it is a certainty that some subset of readers are familiar with it under particular names, but we should not include all 5 of them, plus the generic one, in a list of tabular data. The way out of this seems to me to remember that we have articles and links to them, so if something were known as the Marlboro Bowlin' Shootout for sponsorship purposes but was really the ABA Charleston Bowling Masters Tournament, there's no practical problem referring to it as the latter, or even a shorter version like Charleston Masters.  We can't account for every possible name someone might know an event by and have to trust that they know something about the event (e.g. where it is held), since it isn't realistic to include every possible name in a table.  If the reader has really no idea about any detail of the event other than "Marlboro", they probably wouldn't have gotten as far as they had already anyway, and would instead use the search feature for "Marlboro bowling", and found the article, at ABA Charleston Bowling Masters or whatever.  Short version: Don't try to navigate for the user in articles, especially summary list/table articles; we have categories and search functions for a reason. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rudolf Wanderone peer review
Thanks for the heads up - it will probably take me a few days, but I will make some comments. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. I shall endeavor to be patient. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC Village Pump apostrophe template
Please see the discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous). My hope is that your CSS knowledge and MoS experience will help speed up the revision of a template useful in coding possessives of italicized titles. Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I dropped by and added my support. Seems a very simple fix. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

and is/was not the same thing
I left a message for you at Template talk:Pipe.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded over there. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Can you refrain for using the edit summary to abuse me and my edits. This is the second time I felt your edit summary where a little too to personal for my taste. Gnevin (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is being critical of malformed content a personal attack? Methinks you are self-identifying too closely with your content/edits (cf. the advice to be prepared to be "edited mercilessly" in various guidelines, and see also WP:OWN). It's not my fault that you keep adding material without previewing it to see if it even parses as English. I said this considerably more diplomatically at WT:MOSICON, just because. But edit summaries are short, and thus the points have to be made short in them, and this sometimes results in summaries that can ruffle feathers.  I'm not here to piss you off, but I'm also emphatically not here to clean up after your sometimes sloppy editing, and neither is anyone else, sorry. There is no enormous hurry at that page or any other page (except one with copyright, BLP or other legal issues), so there is no reason not to try to write grammatical, correctly spelled and punctuated, well-thought-out prose. And this doesn't have anything to do with the intent of your edits - at WT:MOSICON I even said that your rearrangement of the material was right on (and you may also note that I did not object to your new version of sportspeople point #1) - only the messiness of the new interpolations, which had misspelled words, arrangements of wording that made no sense at all in English, missing words, not a single space character that I recall following a comma (and there were many such unspaced commas), only-partial italicization of selfrefs, missing periods (BritEng: full stops), and so forth.  It's not like I never make typos; I do it all the time (even when I use preview!).  But dang, man, that was a lot of typos. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: If you still feel wronged, then I do apologize. I don't have to understand why an edit summary offends someone to concede that they actually do feel that way about it, even if I would not have.  I can be brusque in edit summaries, I know. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just remember that for some English is not a strong suit, just as the in's and out's of the infoboxes or the category system is not a strong suit for others, if someone tries to set up a new category or edit a info box and make a mess of it I quietly clean it up . No one is forcing you to edit this MOS and if you can't do it I a good natured way I'd suggest it's time for you too step away. Remember Wiki attracts all types which is why is works so well. Gnevin (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors who do not have strong spelling and grammar skills may want to reconsider helping actually write an encycopedia and its guidelines; there are other things they could do for the project instead, such as source research, finding free images, etc. Editors who do have strong language skills but are not fluent in English should probably instead consider working on the other-language Wikipedia that is in their native language.  Also, it does not take great language skills to not make the kinds of errors (in large quantities) that I pointed out.  Finally, you are welcome to take the approach that "quietly cleaning up after" messy editors works best for you.  My perception, based on long experience, is that if efforts are not made to actually correct the underlying behavior that it will continue indefinitely, and lead to yet more messes for other editors to clean up after, quietly or otherwise.  I try not to bite the newbies, but non-noobs should know better and sometimes require a more direct approach.  Sorry, that is simply my take on the matter.  I'm trying to be honest and constructively critical; it isn't anything personal (How could it be? I don't "know" you in any relevant sense. You also don't know me, so you are not really in a position to judge whether I'm good-natured or not, simply on the basis of liking or not liking an edit summary).  I agree that WP is better overall for its diversity, but that diversity can cause problems from time to time. Some people are not as well-suited as others for writing guideline material, just as some (like me!) should probably not try to write articles about mathematics or gymnastics. Guidelines need to be crystal clear, and as near-perfectly worded as possible, with entirely cohesive internal logic, or they get misinterpreted and misapplied. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar, it was very unexpected, especially as I have no idea about templates or coding apart from what I've learnt making them. I'm not sure what you did wrong, but I think you introduced a | which may have meant the page call always has to be displayed despite it being in an #if statement. But I really don't know if that's true as I have no real understanding of the language, I just look at other people's work and try and see how they did what they did, and work out how to do what I want to do from there. I was very disappointed to be told if then statements are beyond templates. I even have no idea why we have to wrap in curly brackets, that's how dense I am. Still, thank you, I think this is the barnstar I shall treasure the most. Hiding T 13:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, it works very well.  I don't  have a lot of comics to cite, but its nice that the template is there and functions as expected for when it is needed. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk
Here, email, WT:MOS, you name it ... about WT:MOS. I don't keep up with WP:RFARB so I can't evaluate what you said, but some might read an implication of "beware of violating guidelines lest you be destroyed, you and your little wikiproject too", which is a shift in tone from what we've seen in WT:MOS this year. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is a generalized one, not about this project in particular. What I have noted over the last year or so is an increased number of projects, especially sports ones but others as well, simply pretending guidelines and policies don't apply to them. It is rather disturbing. The modus operandi is simply ignoring the guideline (despite nothing cognizable as a reason under WP:IAR) that the project disagrees with instead of working to gain consensus to adjust it to account for whatever needs the project allegedly has. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand completely, and I see you've responded at WT:MOS, I'll reply there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at WT:MOS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

World Pool Champions
Hi, can you start the World Pool Champions page please, as discussed before. I would be happy to add my eight-ball list to it, and it would be great to have one point of reference. Sandman30s (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied back over at Talk:List of World Eight-ball Champions. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied too Sandman30s (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting
With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:


 * 1) Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
 * 2) For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
 * 3) Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
 * 4) Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. I have to observe that various date formats are not actually becoming more visible overall, they are only becoming visible to those who had previously ignored them by setting forcible date preferences, which is some indeterminate percentage of editors and a near-zero percentage of non-editor readers. It's a tempest in a teapot. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates: another way?
I sense that people are getting bored. What about dividing the whole mess up into smaller issues, asking people for their preference (stay away from "vote") for each separate issue? From this, it might be possible to construct a text that displeases the fewest contributors.

Five categories of article are at issue. Two are uncontested—those with strong cultural ties to:
 * the US—month-day-year: February 13, 2006 (except for US military-related articles, which can be day-month-year by consensus)
 * the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa—day-month-year: 13 February 2006

Three categories of article need a solution—those with strong cultural ties to:
 * Canada, which uses both formats
 * non-anglophone countries
 * no particular country

There are three possible methods of deciding for Canada articles (1, 3 and 4 below), and four methods for non-anglophone countries and no-country articles (1, 2, 3 and 4). Because engvar and existing format can be unclear (when the formatting is a jumble of both, as quite often occurs), they need a back-up method. If you choose Method 2, it defaults down the line to 3 and to 4, if necessary; Method 3 defaults to 4 if necessary.


 * (1) use international format only
 * (2) variety of English; if unclear, use C
 * (3) existing format; if unclear, use D
 * (4) first contributor's choice

Choose your single favoured option for each by writing just a plain sequence of three letters and signing.

What is your preference for each method for deciding date formats in articles with strong cultural ties to:
 * Canada: 1, 3 or 4?
 * non-anglophone countries: 1, 2, 3 or 4?
 * no particular country: 1, 2, 3 or 4?

I know it's long, but we need to break it into little bits. What are your thoughts? Tony  (talk)  11:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume that reversal of dmy and mdy above are typoes, and so corrected it; feel free to reverse if I misunderstood you. I suggest the use of American and British or International although they are misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the issue generally, though I kind of prefer my approach of proposing draft language and then seeing how people want to hammer on it. It probably won't get much response because it's the third sub-section in a long section a third of the way up the page. I'm not sure another poll, of any kind, will be useful, however, because polls automatically make people reactive reflexively instead of reflectively, polarize, and devolve into popularity contests. We should arrive at a solution based on reason, not on "I like this and don't like that". Option A here - actually let's switch to numbers, since the original poll(s) used A-D, for different things - option 1 here will alienate enormous numbers of American (most will simply ignore it, if even aware of it), and for better or worse the majority, perhaps even a supermajority, of en.WP editors are Americans, due to the sheer size of our population. Option 1 will also blow a gaping hole in ENGVAR, and probably be its undoing as a useful guideline. It's balance is already tenuous. Changing it do say "...except for dates, always use the British style" is going to be seen as extreme POV pushing (probably even by some non-Americans), no matter how it is phrased ("international" or whatever; it is widely perceived as the British (incl. Empire/Commonwealth) way of doing it. Eliminate option 1, and leave 2, 3 and 4, in the order given, and I'm on board. Either that, or there needs to be a wider discussion (WT:MOS) about whether ENGVAR can tolerate a sudden blanket exception like this, whether ENGVAR should be dropped, or radically changed, or what. IF we really need another poll, I agree it should be one exploring options like this, not asking for votes on a final solution.  But why even get into Canada?  Who cares?  Just let Canadians do as they will.  Eastern Canadians will probably perfer DD Month YYYY, and western Canadians Month DD, YYYY.  Not a big deal. First major contributor, because there is no strong national tie to a date format. I.e., let continue to try to keep it as simple as possible, preferably by simple clarification of what ENGVAR already says.  My draft non-poll-appoach language attempts to do this. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Tony1. Haven't read all of your careful analysis but wanted to mention that where I worked at W3C, when this was discussed we used ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) but not for reading. I believe some U.S. TV network for example used DD Month YYYY (no comma), which gets my vote for internationally-compatible date recognition. That order makes sense around the world, doesn't it? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, DD Month YYYY never takes a comma; the only reason Month DD, YYYY does is to more clearly separate the numerals in DD from those in YYYY, and plenty of Americans even drop that comma. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. One other question (and sorry to come into this discussion late). You aren't proposing to edit Wikipedia globally are you? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not globally myself, but we need style guidelines, especially for something as basic. They are essential in one particular situation—where disputes might arise among the editors of an article. Tony   (talk)  15:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your script malfunction in the English Wikipedia article on a U.S. Presidential candidate didn't give me enough confidence in the date project. More, though, is why? Everyone's watchlist, and every sig on every talk page already has a style. Wikipedia's citation templates work great. Would it be possible to fix them? And why not? Because the data could be reused? When I joined, the publisher field was missing--on every scholarly journal in this domain. No reason for that, it was inexcusable and was fixed. And that user won a barnstar from me. Thank you, User:CJLL Wright. I think Jimmy Wales would remember that too. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

←Well done on that; but I'd get rid of citation templates altogether—they're a terribel scourge. Since that's probably unlikely to happen, modifying them (and infobox templates) so that dates are not autoformatted and scripts can correct them to the prevailing correct format is inevitable. When, though? On the script malfunction, it's really a human-oversight function, too, at this stage. I've asked for the script to be fixed so that it ignores text within quotes and within image names. This is very doable, but Lightmouse doesn't immediately know how to do it. I hope it will be soon. I'm unlucky to have struck two images with dates in their titles—the other one of Her Maj. Tony   (talk)  15:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would we get rid of perhaps the most useful templates on the system? If not for them, I would probably quit editing articles, because it is too hard to remember what order to put all the citation details manually. I agree they need their date formatting code stripped, and their ISO date usage demands fixed; have already brought this up with others at WT:Citation templates. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll work on another barnstar if it works. In case anyone wonders what Tony is talking about, take a look. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 11 September 2001 is unnatural in American prose, although Americans can work out what it means; there's a reason 9-11 is idiomatic (in the country where the attack occurred, at first). A rule mandating it will produce much pointless and annoying strife, of exactly the sort we already advise against. Television news uses it, when they do, as a form of showing off: we're so technological, we speak like computers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that a number first could be a stumbling block in prose. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that American WPians insist on it in the prose of (many or almost all) military-related articles. A minority of Canadians want their almost-American spelling to have dmy. I went through the battlships category and found so few that I was struck by it. To answer Anderson's point, yes, I agree, but Pete Skyring will not agree if it's not an option here. Tony   (talk)  23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC) PS That is why I think I'd go for BCC.  Tony   (talk)  00:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC) PPS The pref range is just too complicated, and people are tiring of the bother. I want them each to provide just a sequence of three letters, for Questions 1, 2 and 3, respectively.  Tony   (talk)  00:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually fine. As I suggested in my draft language, it shouldn't be just a national tie to the topic but a national or dialectal tie to the topic. ("National" was actually a red-herring all along, since this really doesn't have anything to do with nation-states). Proposal: It could perhaps be more succinct as "cultural ties to the topic".  This means US-centric articles get US formatting, military-centric ones get military (incidentally "international") formatting, as modified by national/macro-cultural (e.g. a peculiarity of US military language usage would not be forced on articles about the UK or Australian military if their usage differs), Palau-related articles get (incidentally American-style) formatting, etc.  Just simplify the entire issue and make it less about UK vs. US.  Articles about Canada should actually be written in Canadian English (i.e. mostly American English with a handful of vocabulary departures like "washroom" for bathroom/restroom/w.c., but british spelling on -re/-er and -ou-/-o- words.  Articles on Australia, in Australian English.  But formal English in all cases, with an eye to avoiding highly-dialectal useages. I.e., Jamaica would not be written in Jamacan patois, and California would not be interspersed with "..., like, ...", "dude" or "bitchin.  Another way of putting all of this is: There is nothing special about dates.  They are just another aspect of English-language dialect, and that is already covered by ENGVAR.  If its current wording is confused, clarify it, without changing its spirit and core meaning, because it is already a guideline with longstanding consensus and which has served us well.  I hope that makes as much sense as I intend it to. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: How come this is here instead of WT:MOSNUM? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Restatement of proposal in stepwise terms: (I am in essence revising WP:ENGVAR; WP:MOSNUM need only agree with this and get into more detail and examples with regard to dates specifically.) If there are strong cultural ties to the topic, use the dialect variety most appropriate for that context, including traditional date formatting. [i.e., US style for US, Palau, etc.; intl. for UK, Aus., etc.; intl. for US military; various other examples if needed, probably at MOSNUM, not ENGVAR].  If there is no such strong tie, use the dialect  variety, including date formatting, of the first major contributor. [This auto-accounts for Canada - no demonstrable cultural preference - and for non-anglophone countries - no relevant preference - ergo drop down to major contrib criterion.]  If first major contributor is indeterminate or disputed, use the majority style of the article. If majority style is indeterminate or disputed, and there are no other factors that would strongly suggest a particular dialect  variety (including date formatting) to use, seek consensus on the talk page, and if resolution seems unlikely there, use WP:RFC.  Do not editwar over the matter, and especially do not change date formats to one dialect  variety or the other if it does not match the overall dialect  variety of the article.  If the dialects  English varieties are hopelessly muddled, in a way that is likely to confuse or irritate readers, then be bold and make it consistent within the article.  The common "bold–revert–discuss" cycle should be bypassed in such a case and go straight to discussion without a revert if the consistency edit is disputed, as reverting will return the article to a jumbled, inconsistent state, which would necessarily be worse than an article with a dialect  variety allegedly not appropriate for its subject but used consistently.
 * What does this not account for? I can't think of anything. Yes, it does intentionally ignore the "mandate 'international' format as a default" idea, since that would basically blow a gaping hole in ENGVAR, which is a consensus-supported guideline, and there is no evidence that consensus has changed sufficiently to nullify or cripple it. I don't like the idea of polling (in whatever form) with "default to international" available as an option, because there are lots of reflexive !voters who will support something like that simply by virtue of not being Americans and not having thought about the US–Commonwealth collegial editorial relations step backwards such a mandate would engender, or about the rift this would form between the simple guidance at ENGVAR and the increasingly geeky and exception-ridden micromanagement in MOSNUM. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't cope with "dialect". "Variety" please. Tony   (talk)  02:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: Themes I'm employing here:
 * This is not somehow a uniquely special, technical case (there are several other issues covered at MOSNUM, and which do not conflict with other guidelines, that are special cases). It's just another dialect issue, no more.
 * Don't undercut existing consensus just to expediently solve a problem (a guideline all about how to handle dialectal difference should not have the rug pulled out from under it by a guideline about the details of formatting numbers).
 * Don't ignore a relevant existing consensus and come up with something separate but incompatible simply because the existing one doesn't perfectly address the problem; modify it within the spirit of it as it stands to address the problem adequately.
 * Keep it simple. Give two possible formats (only) in regular usage, i.e. other than in quotations, examples of other dating systems, etc. Have very clear rules for which one to apply, when.
 * Avoid strife and bias, especially in the name of "correctness" or "majority" (neither American majority of editors, nor non-US-date-formatting majority of countries).
 * Don't shock the reader (e.g. by using Commonwealth-English-style dates in a US-English article, other than a military one where DD Month YYYY is traditional). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Mr. McCandlish, never in my life would I think I would be able to say this. As you know, nobody in Apple land will speak to me because, as a dear friend of mine said once. "A bunch of guys with their baseball caps on backwards" watching who at First Avenue? And do they tape their concerts? I imagine Clear Channel does. I'd worry about my super-dooper face recognition search engine, too. More later maybe. I own you a barnstar, too, because I actually volunteered for a face recognition experiment by Johns Hopkins University, held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology before Steve Case quit AOL. I do remember how helpful the EFF was there. And Sun Microsystems, home of [deleted]. Those cameras were a little bit bigger than those formerly hats now ubiquitous phones. But I guess the phones are smart. What I've been up to: 1, 2,. I have seen, with my own eyes, two cryptographers in person. And you know what I'd say? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Best I can say quickly though, sir, is yes a few concerts were free. A company gave me a few tickets too. I saw Tina Turner, no lie. And Musicland let me sort the labels on sales from all their U.S. military stores, I believe around the world. But the forman(sp?), who probably doesn't know Javascript any better than I do had to do the rest. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC) and edits SusanLesch (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. PS: Glad it wasn't me that had to do all the JS coding. >;-)  —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, thankya verra much! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your new policy
Where did this new policy come from? Was it ever discussed? How many Wikipedia math articles have you edited, rounded to the nearest 1000 or so? At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) I've commented on it, and if you don't answer very fast I'm going to revert it. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Answered at WT:MOSTEXT. This isn't the first time (though the first in over a year, probably) I've felt it necessary to ask you please try to be a little more civil.  Your sarcastic supremacism here and attacking heading at the MOSLINK talk page are more than a little over-the-top (I changed it per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:REFACTOR).  FYI, I don't need to be a math-focused editor to know when XHTML is not being used correctly. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Future-Class
In follow up of your TfD of Template:Future-Class, I did a what links here to the template and it brought up only the following WikiProjects: Dungeons & Dragons, Films, Mortal Kombat, Professional wrestling, Severe weather, Superman, Tropical cyclones, and Video games. I add this info to the Template:Future-Class talk page since it seems to give a better indication of the usage of this template. -- Suntag (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For Template:Current-Class, what links here only brings up WikiProjects Severe weather, Television Game Shows, and Tropical cyclones. -- Suntag (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I still think the classes are kind of silly, and this shows that no one's really using them much. I think my TFD nom was spot-on, but if someone from WP1.0 is going to have cow about it, oh well.  I don't want to step on their toes. The current usages seem to me rather suspicious, since in many cases I'd bet real money they are for WP:NOT crap that should be immediate AFDed.  But the weather ones, at least for current (for future, though?!?), e.g. Hurricane Ike, seems justifiable.  If one accepts "current" and "future" as actual article quality ratings, which I think is off-kilter, though I sorta-understand where WP1.0 is coming from. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering who used such classes as well and the what links here gave a better idea. They don't seem add to the FA, A, B, etc rating system for Wikipedia pages. In fact, Current-Class and Future-Class seem to be a way of using Wikipedia to keep track of things outside of Wikipedia (the happening of the topic event itself). People's user subpages are deleted for that very reason. Perhaps the templates could be replaced by Template:Future-Event and Template:Current-Event, which seem more accurate than using Class. Given WP1.0's involvement, I don't think things will change on this. -- Suntag (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We've actually already got a whole slew of templates for this, as I mentioned at the TfD. There are even loads of topical ones. I think the category is Category:Temporal templates. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 08:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF?
Your changes are causing some pages to appear in CAT:SD for some reason. Edits like this. I'm trying to figure out how the code is making it appear in CAT:SD but I can't find anything, so I'm just undoing them for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just a missing ... during a ; long since fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)

User talk:SMcClandish
You parked this user talk page, but never actually created the account. Could you do so, please? Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * System won't let me. Too similar (now; I'm not sure it was back in the day, by the rubrics used by the anti-impersonator code then) to my current account name. My name is so frequently misspelled by people I would leave this as-is. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 07:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)  PS: I've been doing genealogy on this and related surnames for over 15 years, and from what I can determine there is not a single person on the planet who actually uses the [mis]spelling "McClandish", so this will not ever potentially conflict with a non-impostor username request. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 07:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image placeholder requests
Is specifically what you were asking for, or should the categories remain? While the request didn't address them specifically, I removed them on the basis that since it shouldn't be used, the image shouldn't be in a category that someone may go looking for specific placeholders in. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would leave it in Category:Wikipedia image placeholders; I think the matter of what to do with this crud should be taken to WP:CFD and WP:MFD. They should probably all be deleted en masse per the Centralized Discussion rejecting their use categorically, (except for ones actually transcluded in the course of that debate, which should have their category moved to something like "Category:Wikipedia placeholder image debate") but identifying them for deletion will be pretty hard if they are not in that category (the other one, the redir category, simply wasn't appropriate at all). Oh, and yes, that was otherwise the desired result; same for the male version, and the rest of those things, but I didn't realize how many of them there were before I started editprotected-tagging them.  I've since stopped, since it's more of an MfD matter. Doing what I editprotected about for the three or four that I did tag would probably take care of most of the in-article abuses of them. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)  Updated for clarity. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good deal, will proceed :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keen-o. Oh, and I fixed a typo in the editprotected request rationales that made it look like I was simply saying "the code should be deleted"; there's actually a category before the word "code" (I forgot the ":" to make the cat. show up instead of be added as a cat.). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, User:Garion96 reverted all of the changes, so you might want to discuss with him if this is to be attempted in the future. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No big hurry I guess. The reversion terms strike me as a bit like saying "I'm too sick to go to the doctor", but oh well. Bigger fish to fry. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Brought the cat up again
In case you're interested, Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 21. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to check that out tonight. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging biographical infoboxes
I've raised a discussion from last year, about merging similar infoboxes into Infobox Person. I mention is here, as you were involved last year. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check that out some time within the next 24 hours. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your input
... at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates). I'm out of my depth. It concerns whether bots would be needed at any part of the process if we change 1800s etc to a DAB page (instead of defining 1800s to mean 1800–1809, which makes me cry, given that I've just been working on WP:JARGON). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look into it some time around dark:30. Agree that the change would be good, as almost no actual human beings treat "1800s" as "first decade of the 19th century". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tough time
SMc, I'm having a truly tough time with the prose on Rudolf Wanderone. Are you around now? Hag2 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really; I have about 5 min. I will be back online here for a longer time probably later tonight, about midnight US Mountain Time, and much of Wed. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go [*removed as of 16:53 UTC, 26 September*] and check out what I have done. Then come back here and let me know what you think.  Hag2 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks great, actually. I would only have very minor quibbles with it (I think I can see a sentence that needs rearrangement, and the 1942 mini-paragraph should simply merge into the one that follows it, for example).  The rest is a vast readability improvement.  Don't wear yourself out, though. :-) It might be best to move it to Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft or simply edit the article directly. Based on the RfC, there are various other problems to fix in the article, but I'd just as soon do them with your overhauled version (to the extent any of them will still apply). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that you and I have a meeting of the minds. I will work on the continuation as quickly as possible. I will let you know (here) when I am finished.

I like the idea of the Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft concept, and know how to quickly create the redraft page. However I am unfamiliar with the concept of moving (as per Wikipedia's proper procedures). I suppose though that moving is little different than "cutting and pasting" into a newly created Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft page. Since I am very new around here, I will happily let you guide me in the correct Wikipedia procedures: guidelines, restrictions, limitations, rules, and instructions seem to puzzle me with their jargon.

I will try to be finished within 36 hours.

question: Do you know why Ruhrfish's comments, and mine were deleted from your review???? [timestamp: 12:20 (UTC)]

answer: "Archiving: 'Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. '" [posted on the peer review page.]

Thus, Ruhrfish and I are HERE (Boy, this place can baffle the daylights outta me.) Hag2 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Finished
I am prepared to post the revised draft in Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft. As soon as I hear from you, I will proceed. Hag2 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey! PS: I unarchived the review page, since all of this is still active. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A few seconds ago, the Rudolph Wanderone/Redraft page became activated. I thought it may be helpful also to use the discussion-talkpage to answer any questions, or details, back and forth. Hag2 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions for lists
I saw you recently posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (long lists). I've just begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions regarding the many different variations of titles of lists. Your input would be appreciated. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've checked it out. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no recollection of that. Was probably just fixing typos or something. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK then, happy editing. :) BOZ (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there, even if D&D isn't your thing, then chances are whatever you do like is involved somehow. The bot posted a notice on your preferred talk page as well, allowing you to see which articles have been selected. My recommendation - work those first 7 articles up the best you can, and see if you can bring the rest of them up to standards. :) BOZ (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much; I had somehow not noticed the post to the project talk page; maybe my watchlist is too large! :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've done some good work there; I hope you don't mind, but I think I'd like to borrow some formatting ideas from your project page to emphasize the better articles we have for ours the way your does. :) BOZ (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have at it! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)