User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 141

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 135 ← Archive 139 Archive 140 Archive 141 Archive 142 Archive 143 → Archive 145

August 2018

WP:CUE

Stanton McCandlish
VNEA-I/R
Some guy with glasses on a bus
McCandlish on a bus in Mexico, 2010
Born (1901-01-01) January 1, 1901 (age 123)
Townville City, Franklin, US
Sport countryUnited States, Canada
NicknameMac
ProfessionalNot at pool!
Pool gamesEight ball, nine-ball, ten-ball
Best finishNot clear what this is for
Tournament wins
MajorACUI Southwest Regional, 2008, 5th place
MinorVNEA International, 2008, quarter-finals (team),
quarter-finals (doubles);
VNEA International, 2009, quarter-finals (team);
ACS National, 2009, quarter-finals (team)
Other titlesRegional league trophies, blah blah blah
World ChampionOnly at arguing about WP:MOS stuff
Medal record

NRA Sharpshooter Bar-9 (prone, rifle)

Hi SMcCandlish

As per earlier, (see #Pool sources), I've finally put in a request for potential access to AZBilliards. I was looking at the CueSports WikiProject, which I know you run/created, and was thinking of doing some work on some articles. However, it seems like a lot of information is out of date. Would there be a way of running a bot for new articles in our category, for instance, rather than manually updating this.

There is often IPs and other new users that edit these types of articles, do we have a template or equivilent for inviting them to the WikiProject? I feel like this may be the best way to get it back to a decent standard, by increasing the amount of editors. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I would think a bot could be done, but WP:BOTREQ wants to see very, very specific requests. I hadn't created an invite template, but that's probably a good idea, to add right after {{subst:WelcomeIP}}. The project has gone a bit moribund. Fuhghettaboutit used to edit in there a lot more, but became an admin and seems to have most of his time drained by that activity. My own editing interests are really wide, so I don't focus on the topic much now that we have most of the basic articles (though there are many missing notable bios, except in snooker). As you may have noticed, the snooker project is largely separate and very active; WP:CUE's interest is more overall – how snooker fits into the cue sports picture – while snooker-focused editors are generally disinterested in pool and other forms of billiards, and all about current snooker stats. Societally, snooker is a thing unto itself, a major world sport.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I should note I'm primarily a Snooker fan. I update all over the place as well, it made me sad that the Cue Sports was in such a state (A lot of the articles have been created, but the quality isn't there). I feel like I may be able to benefit the wikiproject by inviting new editors. I'll create a template when I get chance.
Speaking of templates, I've been working on creating an infobox for pool players, as it didn't make sense to simply have just one we use from the Snooker project, or the broad infobox person. So, I started {{Infobox pool player}}. I only make templated from time to time, so it might be a bit shabby. Let me know what you think Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Great start. I'd meant to do that years ago but never got around to it. The Pool link in it is to a DAB page. I wouldn't link Nickname; we don't wikilink everyday words, and anyone who doesn't know what the word means isn't competent enough in English to make much use of this site. Needs to suppress any values that are not supplied. Peeps will want a parameter for reported winnings; can probably crib a few others from the snooker box and maybe some others. I would avoid in-game details, since they vary too much by discipline. Maybe a line for world records.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made a few changes as above. There already is a "Career prize money" parameter for winnings, however. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I just didn't notice it in my test, since it's not among the default "copy-paste me" parameters. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Template: Football squad start

Hey! Can you please add the position FP to the Template:Football squad start, as I was using this template for a futsal squad and players other than goalkeepers are usually referred as field players (FP) in futsal. I am not able to do it myself as the template has a permanent protection status.--Anbans 585 (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anbans 585: Please use {{Edit template-protected}} at the template's talk page. The request will probably be rejected if don't do this:
If you don't know template coding well enough to do this, just open a regular talk thread about this feature (without {{Edit template-protected}}) and ask others to sandbox it. People will not make willy-nilly changes to the live template, without sandboxed test-casing, because it's used on a massive number of articles, so the breakable potential is high.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

RM you might want to take a look at

 Done

Talk:Nagano, Nagano - policy issue involved is "consistency". wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Argh, now I gotta go read the Japan rules again. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

Disregard
 – I don't know enough about the topic, nor do I have the time to catch up on it, to be certain about this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

DS Explainer

Would it be possible to create a plain-English explainer or FAQ supplement to go along with the DS Alert template? The template currently links to various sections of WP:AC/DS, and I feel like a concise explanation would help ease some of the confusion and resentment surrounding the alerts. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably. I'm not sure I'm the ideal person to do that because I tend to write long, and I'm also not happy with the DS system in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at it when I have some free time. I'm mostly wondering about procedure: Would it need to go through a lengthy Arbcom process in order to add it to the template? Or would it make more sense to have an informal essay that editors can provide a link to along with the Alert? –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Already underway at WP:General sanctions. Further help there welcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize it would be controversial. –dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Something very, very odd

Look carefully as you start with this diff [1] and then the Next and the Next. What in the world is going on? Why did everything end up struck out? Why do the < s> and < /s> seem to mysteriously disappear? Am I losing my mind? EEng 03:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like it's because you started the strikethru outside the list item but ended it inside. I moved the tag after the colons - that fixed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, that helps, but don't you agree there's something very strange going on in the diffs? In the third one (the second Next) what happened to the < /s>? This is the first time I've had cause to doubt the reliability of diff at the character level, and I suspect it has something to do with recent enhancements to diff. But now that I say that, it must be deeper than that, because I am certain the page didn't render that way, with everything struck out, when I was looking at it some months ago. So something's changed, not just in diffs, but in the parsing and rendering. EEng 03:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a misnested piece of lint. You started an inline tag (<s>) outside of the block tag created by a wikitext : (<dl>, <dd>). The changed display is due to the recent enabling of Remex. The correct fix is to strike only within the indents. --Izno (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: Yes, this is one of a zillion examples of what I mean about the new linter used by Mediawiki being much more strict. It used to not care at all about mis-nested tags, about missing end tags, etc., etc., and now it does. You may have noticed a sharp uptick in people fixing bad HTML code, even in old archive talk pages. This is why. You go look at one, and (e.g.) find the entire page is struck after the third comment, or the second half is all 150% larger font and green, or mid-way through a sentence the content just stops, etc. It's because of unclosed or misnested tags and other invalid markup. This probably relates to your centering and left/right template justify-and-float issues at that other template (it's not that the quote template in question is broken; there's something broken in the surrounding context in which it has been put, and it can take some work to figure it out).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Well I don't know what's going on but the diff displays properly now. EEng 16:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Death year and age

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Death year and age. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, SMcCandlish. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 16:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I hadn't been keeping track. Thirteen years now! (Longer, actually. I was an IP editor here and there for several months before creating an account.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Question....

Hey, Mac - American Bucking Bull - re: your proposed split. The ABBI is a division of PBR (they own part of that private corporation along with a group of stock contractors), but the article is not ready for any content forks. They refer to it as a "breed" but that questionable at this point in time because there are multiple breeds involved - it's more like hoping the right genetic mix will create the desirable characteristics - so all they really have is a DNA database. I doubt it would pass WP:CORP as a standalone. I'm not familiar with the process at Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers#Proposed splits, so would it be easier if you withdraw it, or do can we proceed with a local close? Thx in advance.... Atsme📞📧 22:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Bears further research, and I'm out of wiki time for the nonce. I encourage you to post the gist of this at the article talk. It's looking more and more like the "breed" claim is bogus marketing noise and should just be removed from the article. It's like saying that illegal dog fighters who pick aggressive animals and breed them have created a new breed. They have. They still have pit bulls and whatever other dogs they're breeding, just aggressive ones (and much of that, as with bulls, will be a matter of socialization (or lack thereof), "training" (antagonizing), etc., not provable heritability. Anyway, I cared because the page was categorized as a breed and it is not a breed article, but an organization one. Now I care that "this has something to do with breeding" is being mis-translated into "this is a breed", which is WP:OR and misleading. If you want, just copy-paste these comments to the article talk thread (I would now, but I'm not sure you want your comment relocated in its current form).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok - that's what I'll do. Atsme📞📧 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Was this IP user you?

Were it not for the fact that you list some IP addresses at your user page, I would not be mentioning this here; however, given you have apparently been impersonated before, I might as well mention it. Is 64.228.247.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you? As you can see from their contributions, they seem to sign their posts and edit summaries with "S.Mc" and "Smc". If this is not you (it does not seem like you), it may not be an impostor either, but some may still confuse it with you given the abbreviated moniker. I don't know what, if anything, you may want to do with this information. I might as well note it anyway, though, given I noticed no mention of it in your user page, talk page, or its archives. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nøkkenbuer: Nope! Probably blind coincidence. I would never abbreviate my name "S.Mc" or "Smc" anyway (nor do something like that in an edit summary). Heh. I stopped doing my IP listings because in the mobile age it's pretty irrelevant now. While I do have a stable desktop IP address for months at a time, on any other device it'll vary widely. Anyway, lots of names start with "Mc", so maybe it's a Stephanie McGillicuddy, or Sebastian McQueen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Template name

I came across Template:Film- and television-related infobox templates today and thought I'd get your take on the hyphenation. It is screwed up isn't it, and not some weird naming convention? Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: No, that's proper English, as in "I prefer vanilla- or chocolate-flavored ice-cream over strawberry." MOS:HYPHEN covers this. Hyphenation of compound but not fully fused modifiers is not used consistently in all writing styles (some news publisher and much medical writing have a tendency to drop it), but Wikipedia uses it. While it would not be a reader-confusion matter to drop them in a template name (editor-facing content), as opposed to in article content, there wouldn't actually be a compelling rationale to remove the hyphens, so an RM to do so would likely be rejected. Same with proposing to remove them from the reader-visible output of the template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RAS syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RAS syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #016, 15 Aug 2018

Future portal tool

Discussions are underway on the design of a portal tool (user script) that will hopefully have features for modifying portals at the click of a menu item, to make editing them easier. It might do things like change the color for you, add to a selection, add a new section, move a section, and so on.

If you'd like to be involved and suggest features for the tool, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#What would you want a portal tool to be able to do?.

Progress report
upgrade of portals

As new portal components are built by our Lua gurus, those components are being used to upgrade portals. Each component automates a section of a portal in a particular way.

The sections that are mostly upgraded so far are the Intro, and the Associated Wikimedia section.

The sections currently undergoing upgrade are: Selected image, Categories, and the Intro.

The Intro? Isn't that done already?

Yes, and no.

The upgrade of the excerpt in intros is mostly complete (there are about 70 non-standard portals that still need it).

Now we are doing another upgrade of intros in the form of adding a panoramic picture at the top of the intro, on portals for which such a picture is available on Commons:. Dozens of panoramas have been added so far, and they are really starting to affect the look of portals — the portals that have them look really good.

Regions are the most likely subjects to have panoramas, but a surprising number of other subjects have banner-shaped pictures too. Some examples of non-geographic portals that they have been added to are:

Speaking of pictures, several hundred Selected image sections have been upgraded to include image slideshows.

Progress report
design

The push for automation continues, with new components under continuous testing in the field. As problems are spotted, they are reported to our programmers, who have done a fantastic job of keeping up with bug reports and fixing the relevant Lua modules fast. I am highly impressed.

Construction time on new portals is now down to as little as a minute or less. Though not in general. If you are lucky enough to spot portals that fit the profile of the new tools (their strengths), then a portal can be complete almost as soon as it is created, with the added time it takes to find and add a panorama. Source page titles are not generally standardized, and so it source pages in many cases must be entered manually. Where source page titles follow a standard naming convention, portal creation for those subjects goes quickly.

So, we still have some hurdles, but the outlook on portals is very good. New features, and many improvements to features are on the horizon. I'll be sure to report them when they become available.

What will the portal of the future look like? That is up to you!

See you on the project's talk pages.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   20:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

General sanctions

Hi, as a fellow procedural gnome I thought you would be interested in this discussion. Also, in a bigger picture, think about the two roads described at that page, discretionary sanctions (imposed by arbs) and community sanctions. Obviously there are different processes to be followed leading up to the decision to "do something" and after the something is done there are obviously different process to appeal or change it. So far so good. HOWEVER.... that page seems to allow for two different "do somethings" for no good reason. This creates the possibility of a discrepancy in the look and feel of the the "something".... on one hand you have steamlined coordinated processes associated with DS. On the other you have the much less well described processes for community sanctionsd. In particular, there is a a mishmash over notices and logging of notices. QUESTION... what would you think if we limited Community sanctions to followign the DS procedure in all ways, except one topic might bubble up at ARBs and the other at AN. Appeals and changes would have to happen at those venues. But if the either process decides "Something" should be done, why not require (and restrict) the something to the same standard process, in a one size fits all (no matter how we got here) sort of way? Conceptually, does that make sense to you? Feel free to invite anyone else to this preliminary get-my-thoughts-together discussion, especially any eds you think would be opposed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki linking

As so often happens someone has suggested a merger and nothing happens. Please take a look at Help talk:Interwiki linking#Merger proposal. -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #017, 22 Aug 2018

This issue is about portal creation...

Creating new portals

Myself and others have been testing and experimenting with the new components in upgrading existing portals and in building new portals. They have now been applied in hundreds of portals.

The templates are ready for general use for portal creation.

They are still a bit buggy, but the only way we are going to work the rest of the bugs out is by using them and reporting the bugs as we come across them.

I look forward to seeing what new portals you create!

Be sure to report bugs at WT:WPPORTD.

The main portal creation template is {{box portal skeleton}}.

Portal creation tips

After starting a portal using {{box portal skeleton}}...

  1. Placing a panorama (banner picture) at the top of the intro section is a nice touch, and really makes a portal look good. {{box portal skeleton}} doesn't automatically insert panoramas. So, you will need to do that by hand. They can be found at Commons:. For some examples, check out Portal:Sharks, Portal:Cheese, and Portal:Florence
  2. The search term provided in the Did you know? and In the news sections is very basic and rarely matches anything. It is best to replace that term with multiple search arguments, if possible (separate each argument with a pipe character). For example, in Portal:Capital punishment, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Capital_punishment&diff=855255361&oldid=855137403 Searches in templates use Lua search notation.
  3. Check the In the news and Did you know? sections for mismatches. That is, sometimes entries come up that shouldn't be displayed. If there are any, refine the search strings further, so they don't return such results.
  4. Finish each portal you've created before creating a new one. We don't want unfinished portals sitting around.
Need a laugh?

Check out the Did you know? section on Portal:Determinism.    — The Transhumanist   02:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2018

 – Got there too late.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts on Template:Nihongo's "lead" parameter?

Hey, I was gonna just leave a message on the talk page of the template, then I considered an RFC, then I considered WT:JAPAN or WT:MOS-JA, but thought the first would go nowhere as no one would see it, the third and fourth would look like I was trying to "pick a fight" (something I really don't want to do at the moment), and the second would be premature having not at least run it by someone else first. I considered messaging Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) but contacting a historically sympathetic editor in advance of an MOS-related discussion might have been canvassing, and since you are pretty neutral at least when it comes to Japanese stuff, Asian romanization systems, and so on, and you're also good with MOS stuff you'd be a good person to ask. Basically, the template includes a "lead=" parameter that inserts "Japanese:" and "Hepburn:" into the parentheses on top of the "basic" contents. In the project as a whole there seems to be a movement away from clutter in the lead sentence, and yet that template's parameters appear to introduce unnecessary clutter specifically to the lead sentence. The lead of Do You Love Your Mom and Her Two-Hit Multi-Target Attacks? is unfortunately characteristic, it seems.

But my main concern is not so much that it clutters the lead (or wherever else it is included) but that it is not technically accurate: in every single case, the distinction is not between "Japanese language" and "Hepburn romanization" but between Japanese text and romanized Japanese; in many articles the distinction between "Hepburn" and any other romanization system (such as Nihon-shiki and Kunrei-shiki) is non-existent, and to the majority of en.wiki's readers is arbitrary and meaningless (and naming James Curtis Hepburn in the leads of all of our Japanese articles seems really weird). Our Satarō Satō article doesn't use this parameter (in fact it's been doing fine without the Nihongo template at all) but if it did it would look pretty ridiculous since the article title and both versions in the parentheses would all be "Japanese language", and the two romanized names would be "Hepburn" but just as much "Nihon-shiki" and "Kunrei-shiki", with the distinction between them actually being Japanese naming order. The only articles for which the parameter's current wording and wikilink are not bogus are ones like Dragon Ball, where the Japanese name is actually in English and the distinction between the romanized names is that of Hepburn romanization on transcribing the Japanese name into standard English spelling, but even there the "Japanese language" link is still wrong because the Hepburn-romanized Japanese is also Japanese and the better link would be katakana.

I don't actually have a single alternative solution for this, since as far as I am concerned the best outcome would be to simply abandon the parameter altogether and, in articles where the template is used, simply use it in the style Foo (フー Fū).

(I just checked, and I appear to have raised a fair few of these concerns almost four years ago and received minimal response at the time.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you've brought the whole "Hepburn" thing up with me before, and I totally agree with that. Just do what I do—don't use {{Nihongo}} at all. After all these years, I still can't remember the order of the parameters. It's such an ugly template. What I do is '''Norwegian Wood''' ({{lang|ja|ノルウェイの森}} {{transl|ja|Noruwei no Mori}}). Kind of hard to get that wrong, and you get no clutter or semantic issues.
If you want to get this shit deprecated, I'm all for that, but I'm not looking forward to going head-to-head with those who'd see it as an opportunity to get parentheticals removed from leads entirely. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88 and Curly Turkey: Late to the party, I agree with Hijiri's summary of he nature of the problem. I'm not sure the "simply use it in the style Foo (フー Fū)" thing would work, since that's not going to auto-generate language markup, or might do it wrong. To back up a template level to the basic ones, the proper way to encode that (assuming "Foo" is assimilated into English like "karate" and "sushi") is Foo ({{lang|ja|フー}} {{lang|ja-Latn|Fū}}). If "Foo" is not assimilated, and is just a different romanization, and we're giving it in italics as non-English, then it's {{lang|ja-Latn|Foo}} ({{lang|ja|フー}} {{lang|ja-Latn|Fū}}); last I looked there aren't any parameters for specifying the exact romanization system, but this could have changed in my absence. (And there are alt. templates for some of this, like {{transl}}, of course.) Anyway, the point being: a more complicated wrapper template for Japanese, like {{Nihongo}}, needs to continue to ensure that the right code (either these exact templates or their underlying Lua functions) are applied to the right strings of text in the right character sets. We can't just leave it to manual formatting, or we'll get a shitey mess across a zillion articles due to a combination of confused and lazy editors. PS: coming in this late and still playing catchup on a bunch of things, I might also be missing something, so clue me if necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
If someone can come up with a good template, I'd use it. Like I said, after all these years, I still can't keep {{Nihongo}} straight in my head, so I avoid it. There's also {{Nihongo2}} and {{Nihongo3}} out there, just to keep things fun. Part of the problem is trying to deal with different outputs—sometimes you want something like the Norwegian Wood example, but sometimes you want it reversed: Sei-i Taishōgun (征夷大将軍, "Commander-in-Chief of the Expeditionary Force Against the Barbarians"). Or sometimes you want only part of the output (no gloss, say) or extra information (multiple pronunications, for example). {{Nihongo}} handles all that, but only by making it difficult to remember what goes where when, and it gets screwed up so frequently—so often the gloss ends up in the Japanese-script parameter, resulting in a different font face for the gloss (Japanese fonts include roman characters), à la shōgun, which is both semantically incorrect and ugly. The template's more trouble than it's worth. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Date formats in citations

Just in case you think you're the only one who thinks having consistent date formats (either "d mmm yyyy" or "mmm d, yyyy") is a good idea, take a look at a successful proposal, all of the issues raised and the closer's remarks:

I thought you might appreciate the "Don't you think that 'April' is a much more beautiful use of the English language than 'month 04'?" comment and squirrel it away for future use . --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thanks, that may come in handy later. It's obviously not going to proceed this round, due primarily to people not actually understanding the proposal, but the problem (and the perception that it is one) isn't going to just vanish. I tend not to re-raise things like this until about a full year as passed, though, to give time for consensus to settle or shift as it will.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A Baker Barnstar

The Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators.
For applying your expertise in disambiguating the James Addison Baker articles. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Oldsanfelipe: Thank you!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Highway 2 (Israel)

Disregard
 – I decline to get involved in these; as a primary author of MOS:ICONS, I'll always side with the version without the cutesy pictures. It's a bias.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Highway 2 (Israel). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:transcluded section

Unresolved

I came across the use of {{transcluded section}} in article space (House of York#Coats of Arms) Do you know if there is there any policy or guidance to the use of this technique in article space? -- PBS (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A timely related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Boilerplate_duplications_in_related_articles. EEng 23:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@PBS and EEng: I honestly don't know much about this yet. I've been dimly aware of it, and that it has a lot of utility potential and at least a little mischief potential. I'm mostly aware of it because the feature's existed on another wiki I work on, ever since it became available for MediaWiki. But that's also a site that doesn't have the kind of "shenangigans" that WP suffers (that one's a small editorial crew, and a site that does not attract vandals or weird PoV pushers with any frequency).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I listed some of the issues in the discussion that User:EEng mentioned above—now archived in Archive 207# .... I seem to remember back in the day (>10 years ago) that these were discouraged from article space to article space (it is of course used all the time between template space and articles space), but I have no idea if it was ever put in to a guideline. Have you just seen this thread, or has the issue appeared elsewhere? -- PBS (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States Senate elections, 2018

 – Got there too late.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States Senate elections, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(disambiguation) redirects to set index articles

This discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation has resumed so you may wish to take a look. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I think my w'break lasted long enough that the thread went away. All I'm seeing is reams and reams of stuff about Andrewa's various "death-to-PRIMARYTOPIC" proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I lost track of it when there was just more of the same refusing to listen. I doubt it ended with a consensus for anything other than in the minds of those opposed to any change. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually it was given a proper close by SoWhy with a weak consensus in favour of (disambiguation) redirects to SIAs - it's now at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 48#RfC: INTDAB links to non-dab pages. " Consensus is (slightly) in favor of having redirects that end in "(disambiguation)" that target SIA or name lists in general, although single examples might exist where the redirect should be deleted." Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sephora

 – Closed before I got to it.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sephora. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:SMcCandlish/Archive_141"