User talk:Seav/Archive 6

Tagalog help needed
Hello Seav, I'm contacting you because we need some Tagalog translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on tl.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Tagalog Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

When In Manila AfD
How many reliable sources (total) would you say it needs to be retained in the encyclopedia? I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WEBCRIT does not specify any number and I think I agree with this. I think prominent coverage by 2 reliable sources may meet the "multiple" criteria if the sources are extremely reliable. But if the sources are not always reliable or if the coverage in the sources is debatable on whether they are trivial or not, then more than 2 sources may be needed. I think the discussion should center on the quality of the sources and on how the sources covered the subject in question rather than on the quantity of sources. --seav (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the discussion, but I asked how many because you brought up a quantitative point ("not enough"). I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Title stability
I don't know if it's conscious or intentional, but it seems to me that many people have at least an unconscious preference for title instability. They seem to favor ambiguity in the rules so that they can apply "judgment" in individual title decisions. I really think this is an underlying motivation in some, which is the only way I can explain why they resist clarity and seek "wiggle room" in the rules governing title selection. Just an observation. --B2C 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "And from there follow B2C's relentness years of working to marginalize the value of recognizability, to get to where the only acceptable title is the shortest possible title, so that editors are left without anything to discuss."Q.E.D. Yes,, I want to leave editors without anything to discuss ABOUT TITLES so we can focus on, you know, article content!  --B2C 00:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not instability that I favor, but better titles. The inflexible rule-based approach is not the best, in the opinion of most who has joined discussions about it.  If you are not a fan of discussing titles, please just drop out of the discussions, and things will get on fine without you.  But since when have you cared much about article content?  Aren't most of your edits on WT:AT and RM discussions?  I see you're only about 7% in article space (compared to my 55%); so no thanks for trying to help me spend more time editing articles.   Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , yes, I personally am more interested in working on title stabilization than working much on article content directly myself. I'm but one editor; I don't believe I alone can make nearly as much of an improvement on WP in the area of article content as I can in the area of title stabilization (improvement in title stabilization frees countless editors and admins to work on article content instead of pouring time and energy into pointless back-and-forth title discussions). I understand your intent is not title instability in titles; your goal is "better" titles. My position is that making titles more descriptive, or more recognizable to those unfamiliar with the topic in question, does not improve them to any significant degree. As others have noted, Wikipedia would work almost as well if titles were randomly selected gibberish strings.  The improvement of having a human readable title is already marginal; any further refining beyond that is inherently of negligible benefit, at best.  Other who share this view believe the correct solution is walk away from title discussions and just let those who care battle it out, pointlessly.  I'm of the view that we should try to limit fueling the insanity, and the fuel to this insanity is ambiguous guidance. Further, an unintended consequence of trying to "make titles better", makes countless titles that are currently stable, unstable.  Criteria that does not give clear direction, but instead can be referenced to equally support two or more choices, simply provides grist for WP:JDLI arguments, and makes titles subject to the whims of whoever happens to show up at any given discussion.  What we should be striving for is a situation in which no matter who participates, the result is the same.  The result should not be dependent on the makeup of whoever shows up at a given discussion, as it currently often is.   Conversely, by tightening up the policy and guidelines that govern title selection, the titles are no less good, and become more stable.  That allows more editors, like you, to make more real content improvements on Wikipedia.  --B2C 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello, Seav. Instead of adding Category:Disambiguation pages to any new disambiguation pages, please add the Disambiguation template instead. This automatically includes the category, and also does other auto-categorization and formatting that is needed for WikiProject Disambiguation. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Slight change in the White Album move discussion
The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ph seal rizal.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal rizal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

, South Australia
You should such accidental page creations. FTFY ï¿½ (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Core Infrastructure Initiative
Hello! Your submission of Core Infrastructure Initiative at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Core Infrastructure Initiative
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIAS
I suspect much of the issue with Barandal and others like it relates to WP:BIAS, not on the part of individual editors but Wikipedia itself. As I mentioned in the discussion, I live in Australia. Wikipedia has (quite literally) articles for every single suburb in Australia, from the historically-named, heavily-populated, and easily-notable ones through to the less-than-200-people rural back-waters mentioned once in some historical sub-division document from the local council. Nonetheless, nobody in their right mind would nominate one of those for deletion. Any such attempt would be WP:SNOW closed within hours per WP:GEOLAND. I don't think that AFD would make for a good GEOLANDS test-case but if you come across similar things in the future, let me know. Normally in discussions that long there's plenty of animosity but that one has been genuinely interesting and pleasant to participate in.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving articles about Australian towns
Hi Seav. Could you please engage in the conversation at WP:AWNB before moving any more established articles about Australian towns and suburbs? Yes, you are quoting the words of the naming convention, but the generally accepted interpretation is that this does not grant carte blanche to move articles around, it says that if you are creating new articles for places that haven't had one yet, you have a choice of what title to use for the article. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 06:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Islands and administrative units
You mentioned User:Seav/Islands and administrative units (which seems reasonable to me) in Talk:Romblon_(island). If you are planning to eventualy publish that outside of your userspace, I'd suggest not referring to "current Wikipedia practice" in those terms. WP:DATED wouldn't apply directly outside of article space, but the issue it points up should be considered. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. I have no intention of moving my essay out of my userspace. I've noticed that many Wikipedians have a love-hate relationship with essays in the Wikipedia namespace. So, I'm keeping my essay in its current location to make it clear that this is my own opinion but will refer to it in discussions (such as in Talk:Romblon_(island)) to avoid repeating my reasons on discussions on mergers and redirects. Thanks! —seav (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to chat about interactive maps
Hello, I’m Chris, a community liaison in the Discovery department at the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the projects we’re working on is to bring interactive maps to Wikipedia. If you are interested, I’d like to have an informal conversation with you about your work with maps. I'd like to learn more about your work and how that might influence the design of interactive maps.

Please let me know of some good times to chat via email and I can setup a meeting for us. I can be reached at ckoerner@wikimedia.org.

If you’re not interested, that’s fine. I would appreciate any direction to other editors that have been involved and might be interested.

Have a good day, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Torre de Manila controversy
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Philippines v. China
Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Misleading maps
Hello Seav, I would just like to inform you that some of the maps of the Philippines that you have created have slightly misleading information; Palawan is not part of the Visayas region. Most if not all of them could be found in Articles on the Provinces of the Philippines. Please revise the maps so that nobody would be confused. Thanks. Jeth888 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Ultras of the Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ph seal cavite.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Trolling
IP 114.206.216.191 is a troll. I've removed the IP's message from your Talk page. Ber31 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)