Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:31, 19 July 2020

User:GenQuest / Editing Templates / Merging Templates / Editing Help and Misc. / Q / I TAGGED it? / Rules of Grammar / There are no angry mastodons here! / What is the meaning of life?

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict the Balkans or Eastern Europe post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people He should not be given alerts for those areas.

This user has been awarded barnstars. Click here to view them.

Disagree with your close at Southern Victory

In terms of simple vote-counting, a 2-3 split is not a consensus. Whilst of course it is not a vote, good policy reasons have been cited as to why this merge should not go ahead either (i.e., the articles meet the notability criteria for books). This looks like no-consensus to me. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, simple vote counting is a 4-2 split, as the proposer counts, too. (If I hadn't closed this, I probably would be reluctantly leaning on the "merge" side myself, per user 'SMcCandlish''s statement). Policy reasons which have been presented on both sides of the discussion are "good", including ALLPLOT and GNG, and should be weighed. Your statement at the discussion point re: that this is a de facto deletion discussion does have some merit, but I will point out that these articles have been in this atrocious, plot-only, state for over a decade, and no one seems anxious to step up and fix even one of them. Perhaps they would be better presented to AfD as opposed to Project Merge?

That said, I won't take it personally and would have no qualms with you reversing the closure – in the near term – provided some course of action going forward for these articles are arrived at, either blowing them up, actually performing a major editing overhaul, or merging, or whatever.

I am transcluding this correspondence to the article discussion area. Regards, GenQuest 21:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

:

Extremely sorry for interrupting you again, but i think you mistakely forgot to close the discussion in the talk page of Wang Shixian. Please do so, so that matter can have a successful end. Thankyou so much for your cooperation in previous requests. Once again, thanks. Zoglophie (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zoglophie: this is  Done. GenQuest 15:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you !

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Your quick action in solving my proposed merger issues is so so appreciable. When i first looked at the old cases, usually they stretch for several months, but your swiftness in clearing up the cases lead to the superfast conclusion of issues. Merely a Thanks isn't appropriate for your great work. Keep it up! Zoglophie 18:00, 10 May 2020

Zoglophie (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

THanks. Glad I could help. GenQuest 22:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mai Minokoshi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mai Minokoshi is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mai Minokoshi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Iffy★Chat -- 10:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Expected, as this was kind of an experiment. When I discovered the Misplaced Pages:Most-wanted articles list, I picked one and created it; I should've looked first. Have to admit, I am at a loss to find additional references of note. GenQuest 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Austin, Texas

I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. Camping is not allowed in city parks and the referenced article says that. I have quoted the article instead of merely editing the sentence on the page. Wastrel Way (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Eric

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi GenQuest, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Removing AfD template from !!!!!!!

Hi! You'd removed AfD template from this article before the discussion was closed: discussion, your edit. In future, please close AfD and follow all the subsequent steps when implementing AfD result. Thank you! Juliette Han (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han: Your message appears to be in error, as I have removed no AfD templates. I respectfully request that you please provide a diff or strike your edit. Thank you. Regards, GenQuest 14:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@GenQuest: See 'your edit' link from the first message. Didn't mean it in a reproaching way whatsoever, don't get me wrong. Juliette Han (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han: I see what you are referring to. That template was originally misplaced on to the article page, instead of the Talk Page where it belongs. I didn't even notice it there. My bad. GenQuest 14:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted 86.52.110.92 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit of the BAT MASTERSON page. Please tell me what the problem is since everything I added is correct. I didn't delete anything. I only added to the previous. The page only stated two of his 6 siblings (two sisters and four brothers), and all I did was adding the remaining four (two sisters and two brothers).

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Airrosti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Airrosti is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Airrosti until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2014 Syrian presidential election on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Food and agriculture in Nazi Germany on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Decisive

I'm not saying that Vicksburg wasn't a decisive Union victory, rather that per the WP:GUIDELINE at WP:MILMOS#Primary infoboxes it is not an allowed value for the result parameter: In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. The template docs define two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" and admonish Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Mojoworker (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: I am looking into this with my currently very limited WP time. I understand that has been an ongoing discussion practically since I've been on here (starting 2008), but wasn't aware that a consensus had ever developed regarding it. Can you point me to that discussion? I've been searching for it and it is being elusive. Regards, GenQuest 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the discussion occurred at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Military history#Guidance on results a couple of years ago. Mojoworker (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: Just a question, is that debate definitively settled as one opposed to "decisive"? It doesn't seem to be. (No rage, I just have a doubt:)) HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Given that the guideline was changed as a result of that discussion, is quite explicit in its definition of allowed values, and hasn't been contested since, I would say yes. But don't take that discussion as the only factor that led to the current directive at WP:MILMOS#Primary infoboxes. As I say, the guidance is explicit: "In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes." The more so when coupled with the actual template documentation. But as I've said before, if you're unsure, ask at MOS:MIL and find out for certain. We shouldn't be clogging up GenQuest's talkpage. If you'd rather I do it, let me know. Mojoworker (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

My talk page is fine to clutter for now @HalfdanRagnarsson: @Mojoworker: I actually looked at that discussion, and kept on looking, trying to find a discussion where actual consensus was established for that change. I'm still not seeing it and believe a wider discussion is in order, especially in the cases where numerous references use the same description as an outcome. Then it's not using SYNTHESIS or being non-Neutral.

This particular discussion is in reference to the Siege of Vicksburg, but there is a definite need for additional input (perhaps through MfD?) regarding additional / other MilHist articles. ~ GenQuest 09:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Was there "actual consensus was established for that change" at the "Guidance on results" discussion? It doesn't matter. A change was made over two years ago as a result of the discussion, and has stood ever since. It is now presumed to have consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. And as I said before, don't take that discussion as the only factor that led to the current directive at WP:MILMOS#Primary infoboxes – that was only one piece of it. No one is accusing you of using SYNTHESIS or being non-Neutral, only that using the term "decisive X victory" in the "result" parameter of the infobox is contrary to the WP:GUIDELINE. And, since the guideline is at MOS:MIL, the talk page there would be the appropriate place to open a discussion if you have questions about interpreting it and would like clarification (or would like to change the wording). I'd guess you can also ask for clarification at WP:MILHIST (but that's not the place for discussing changes to the wording). But as for discussion here on your talk page, we can talk here all we want, but it won't change anything. Per WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Mojoworker (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: Presuming consensus? I do not see that in WP:CONSENSUS. A consensus has to be a real one. (Note that the discussion at MOS:MIL went on long after the change to the guideline.) So we're not overriding any consensus, because there is none - the same point I made at Talk:Battle of Gaugamela. As GenQuest said, when it is valid to use terminology like "decisive" (e.g. Gaugamela and Vicksburg), there's nothing in the way of using it. Also, per WP:5P5, we must understand how a guideline is to be applied. (I do not think I was very clear with that on the discussion at Gaugamela.) Cheers, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you should read WP:CONSENSUS again. An RfC is not the only way to achieve consensus. I'm saying the change was made the way consensus is often achieved, through discussion. That edit was made during the discussion – do you think the other participants just missed it and would've reverted if only they had seen it? But even if that were the case, consensus can also be achieved through editing, and yes, an edit unchallenged for that long a time is presumed to be the current consensus. Do you think you could just go and revert User:Cinderella157's edit now after more than two years without anyone objecting? In any case, I've opened a discussion at WT:MILMOS. Discuss there if you want. Mojoworker (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, the changes to deprecate the usage of "decisive" in the infobox were a consequence of discussions at WT:MILHIST and with notifications there and were consequently subject to extensive scrutiny. So, while not a formally closed RfC they do represent a strong (IMO) consensus. The changes at WP:MILMOS were mainly to give some weight to the guidance at the template since some argued that it carried no weight and could be ignored - even though it had gone through a similar process. I will give some more detail at WT:MILMOS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata short descriptions

Seem to be often inadequate or worse. The lead for the Groveland Four says "wrongfully accused", but the Wikidata description didn't say wrongfully. I've added that as I think it's important. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine also, although I think 'accused' is pretty neutral as the word does not indicate guilt in and of itself. Regards, GenQuest 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Louis Hector

Hi, I saw that you added more examples of episodes based on Sherlock Holmes stories to Louis Hector's radio performances after I added those episodes to the pages for those stories. I just wanted to let you know that you can ask anytime if you'd like me to add Sherlock Holmes episodes, dates, etc. to Louis Hector's page. I'm happy to add things for editors who don't have access to the reference materials that I have. If not then feel free to ignore this message. Miles26 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, @Miles26: that would be great. It's fantastic that you have access to refs on these old time plays and players. The dearth of information from that time period on Misplaced Pages is troubling. Thanks for your work, and have at it. Thanks for the offer. Regards, GenQuest 11:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@GenQuest: Great. I don't really have many refs for actors in that time period, but I do have books about Sherlock Holmes adaptations specifically since that is one of my areas of interest. I'm not sure how many of the episodes you wanted added to Louis Hector's page, so I simply added the rest of the episodes that were directly based on Doyle's SH stories. Please feel free to trim or change my edit, and let me know if you want me to add or check something. Thanks also for your work. Miles26 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Samurai Vampire Bikers from Hell" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Samurai Vampire Bikers from Hell. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 9#Samurai Vampire Bikers from Hell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Merrill and Hopewell

This edit added Benjamin Merrill to the article for Hopewell, New Jersey, which was not established as an independent municipality until 1891, more than a century after he died. Merrill could be from Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey or from Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey, both of which existed at the time Merrill was born. It could also be other Hopewells in New Jersey, but it seems not to be Hopewell, New Jersey, which is the link used in his article. Do you have any sources to narrow down the Hopewell in question here? Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Alansohn. That's my bad. It should point to one of the townships, not the town.. Feel free to remove that one, or I will. I'll have to dig a bit deeper on him, as his bio (written early 20th century) only says he was from Hopewell, and nothing more specific. Thanks for the heads-up. Regards, GenQuest 13:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Hopewell Township in Mercer County, but I haven't been able to pin that down. I will continue to research as I learn more about the War of the Regulation. Thanks again for looking into this. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benjamin Merrill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Pugh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard Belzer reversion

Wondering why the contribution to the Richard Belzer page on July 17,2020 was reverted as the contribution adds to how, in part, Richard contributed to film. Dana Kilalps (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Dana Kilalps:. That addition would be considered trivia unless sourced reliably. Please see RELIABLE. The on-line wikis, forums, and user-contributed sites are not considered reliable sources for our purposes, including IMDb, Find a Grave, YouTube, GenForum, etc. They may be OK as an external link in most cases, but can not usually be used as a content-confirming reference. I think I put some links on your talk page for you to get started. See MoS for starters and let me know if you have any more questions. Perhaps if RB said something regarding that in an interview somewhere, you could locate that. Not sure if IMDb requires source attribution, but that would be one place to start if they have those listed, otherwise, Google is your friend. Thanks for your work and happy editing. Regards, GenQuest 11:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion at Demchok?

Hi! In your close at Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger, you wrote

I would suggest that further development of articles along the Berlin-model (East Berlin, West Berlin) may be the way through here. In other words, three total articles.

So by this, do you mean to create an article at Demchok, Ladakh specifically about the Indian-administered half and include links in a brief overview on each half from Demchok? — MarkH₂₁ 05:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I would say to treat the historic town in one article (Demchok), and the now split town with articles for each division (Demchok, Ladakh; Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture) each treated as any other separate entity would be. They would each have almost the same history up to a point, and the historic town article would be a "See Also" tag in the history section of both, thus: {{See also|Demchok}} placed under the "History" sub-header, with each having its own unique history following the divergent point explained. (Also, if there is any initial period of overlap or national-alignment confusion, it should mainly be explained only in the Demchok article if possible.)

It's pretty clear the place was one settlement divided by a river in the past, and perhaps will be again in the future. I think the Berlin situation is the closest model for these articles, even though they are comparatively very small. I think that is the best solution for the settlement(s) at present, and the least controversial. I take it from your interest that you may be willing to tackle the task. If so, let me know if you have any questions throughout the process. Regards, GenQuest 05:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• American Wikipedians
• WikiProject History participants
• WikiProject Beer participants
• Misplaced Pages AfC reviewers