User talk:SMcCandlish

busy

Logorrhoea

Unresolved

 – Article still not split.

Hi there. I see you've done some work on the Logorrhoea article and was wondering whether or not you had read my comments on the discussion page there. IMHO the section on rhetoric is sub-par in many ways and actually I was considering expanding the mental health part and significantly trimming the rhetoric part, which mostly appears to be the opinion of people who don't like high-falutin' sentence structures.

Are you suggesting we split Logorrhoea into (use in rhetoric) and (use in medicine)? --PaulWicks 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dicussion moved to direct e-mail (short version: YES. Better to split than to remove material.) --Smccandlish 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: Logorrhoea (rhetoric) should just be merged into Prolixity anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You managed to work the word "Logorrhoea" into an edit summary of some work I did on Labile affect. Nice. --PaulWicks 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was vocabulary practice. I'd just been at the L. page, and thought I'd try making myself use it (and even use the UK spelling); I usually use "prolixity"; it sounds less insulting! Heh.  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Active guideline

Resolved

 – I don't archive this one, as it serves as a good cautionary tale against abuse of user-warning templates.

The consensus on the wikipedia:naming conventions (books) guideline *including notes on notability* was prior to wikipedia:notability (books) being started. There is no consensus on that new proposal. Until there is, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria is the *active* guideline on book notability. --Francis Schonken 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of plain curiosity, I'd like to see evidence of that, specifically that the passage in question was present and substantively identical to its current wording at the pont of transition from a draft Guideline on book naming conventions to a non-draft one. But it's a moot point. It is almost ludicrously inappropriate for a non-controversial guideline on naming conventions to have a totally off-topic rider in it that attempts to set a guideline in one of the most hotly-debate spheres of Wikipedia, namely "notability". If this rider was present in the original draft naming convention for books, it is entirely possible that the only reason it survived is precisely because it was a hidden rider - few who would have any reason to object would ever notice it and weigh in. If it ever represented any form of consensus at all it was only a consensus among people who a) care about book naming conventions, and (not or) b) either support the vague notability rider, didn't notice it or didn't care either way. Ergo it it not a real Wikipedia consensus at all. But even this is moot. The existence of an active push to develop Wikipedia:Notability (books) demonstrates that there is in fact no consensus at all, period, that the notability rider in the naming article is valid. If it remains, I'm taking this to arbitration, because I believe the presence of the rider to be deceptive and an abuse of the Policy/Guideline formulation process and consensus mechanism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• From proposal to guideline, 09:07, 25 January 2006 — no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.
• From the day it became guideline to today, 16:29, 23 July 2006 — no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.

--Francis Schonken 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But as I said, I think this is a moot point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Further information: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) § Notability criteria

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You reverted the *consensus* version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria to the version you had proposed earlier today. That version of yours is not consensus, and you knew that when you reverted. For guidelines one needs a new consensus for major changes. Yours was a major change. It had no consensus. So I'm posting this warning on your user page, and will then proceed to revert the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria section to the version that had consensus when that became a guideline about half a year ago.

You're welcome to discuss other versions of that section (whether that be a temporary version until Wikipedia:Notability (books) becomes guideline or a more permanent solution) on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) talk page. But consensus is needed before it can be moved to the guideline page. --Francis Schonken 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cute, but a total misdirection (as to at least three claims, of consensus, my tacit agreement that consensus existed, and new edit not reflecting consensus, and possibly a forth, as to edit scope. I do in fact dispute, in more than one way, that the section in question represents any meaningful consensus, for reasons already stated and evidenced. I contend that it is someone's "pet" section and removable as such; that it is an off-topic insertion and thus subject to removal on other grounds; and that even if it had some merit at one point it has been superceded by the current Wikipedian editors' consensus on this topic (which is that the topic needs a Guideline, period, so one has been started as a Proposal; notably it is not a consensus that the rider needs editing and improvement; rather it is being replaced, to the extent its existence has even been acknowledged. To continue, I further assert that removing the rider would in fact be a consensus move. Wikipedia:Notability (books) would not be well on the way to becoming a Guideline if there were any consensus that the off-topic notability rider in the naming guideline already had any consensus support whatsoever. It is very notable that no one has proposed a section merger or in any other way addressed the rider as valid or worth even thinking about. It is simply being ignored. And I assert further that it is at least questionable whether it is a "major edit" to remove a small section that is more adequately covered by another article (whether that article is considered "finished" or not) that has a lot more editorial activity and interest, and replace the redundant section it with a cross-reference to the latter, as I did.

The fact that no one has even touched the rider at all since Jan. strongly supports my points that a) virtually no one who cares about notability of books is aware of it, got to debate its inclusion, or even considers it worth working on or authoritative in any way, because the topic of how to define book notability is generating quite a bit of activity on the other article; and therefore b) it reflects no consensus on the topic of book notability, period. Which is what one would expect, given that it's buried at the bottom of an article about spelling! I also dispute the notion that an approved Guideline on [Topic A] is also an approved Guideline on unrelated [Topic B] just because it happens to mention some ideas relating to how to deal with [Topic B]. If you are aware of another example, I'd love to see it.

PS: I'm posting most of this, with further (case-closing, in my opinion) facts, references and evidence, on the article's talk page, since otherwise the debate won't affect anyone's views other than yours and/or mine in User talk.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

Months later, the points I raised were never refuted or even questioned at the talk page in question, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) is well on the way to becoming a Guideline, meanwhile Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria was nominated two more times for removal, with the unanimous support of those who commented, and was replaced with a wordy wikilink to Wikipedia:Notability (books). I rest my case. One may wish to actually look into establishing what consensus really is on whatever matter is at hand before presuming to lecture others about it. PS: The abuse of {{Test2a-n}} on my Talk page (it is intended, and instructed, to be used in series with {{Test1}} or a variant thereof) was very heavy-handed. I'm leaving it up instead of archiving it, because I think it says far more about abuse of the label "vandal" than it does about me. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eight ball

Unresolved

 – Need to actually make the eight-ball article cover everything described, and as-described, herein.

Gad what a mess eight ball is. I'm gearing up to rewrite it if I can figure out a logical way of doing so. Regarding you query on the section about the Mexican ruleset (where you wrote "Is there a name for this?"), I don't know of a name but I know the origin, and if I can get off my ass and do the cleanup I can take care of it. In short, after B.B.C. Co. Pool was invented, eight ball went through a number of distinct ruleset periods. One of them, which lasted for a number of years, had these exact rules. Once that is defined, it can be added that these rules are still used in Mexico.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The blackball section could probably use expansion. My take on it is that it should dispense with the "possible" ruleset language, describe the intl. std. rules, and if/where they differ mention that the APA or VNEA or BCA or whatever rules differ on this little point[cite], and continue. Amat. variations like bank-the-eight and last-pocket should remain in a "rules variations" section. Yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure exactly how to do it, and I agree that "possible variations" is clunky as hell, but here's what has been percolating 1) continue the history section I started, going into the variations up to the modern era. Then define the world standardized rules. Then the standard bar/recreational rules and how they differ from the BCA (with some explication of that there is no standard because no formal ruleset, but widely followed and explain that they vary). Then we can go into game variations such as last pocket, etc.. Last pocket, by the way, is apparently very, very widely played variation in South America.--Fuhghettaboutit

I'd suggest doing the WS rules, and interspersing them with Big League differences as needed (BCA/VNEA/Blackball/APA/IPT), just to keep it shorter - might be a bit frustrating to have follow-on sections like "BCA exceptions", "VNEA exceptions", etc.; then close with a section on amat./"bar rules" variations (which will need somehow to discourage additions of "in my neighborhood..." variants; I think the present HTML comment language is probably a good start). Agreed that last-pocket is huge in Latin America; was why I added it. EVERY native Mexican, El Salvadorean, Nicaraguan, etc., that I've met plays that way (and not the "magic side pockets" way detailed earlier in the article; I'd demote that to a minor variation), and without any differences (e.g. as to 2 free scratches, etc.) It seems quite uniform. There's a bar called City Club in the Mission district of San Francisco with really great players none of whom seem to speak a word of English where what I described are the house rules. The players are from all over Latin America, quite friendly to Gringos if we can figure out the rules, and they never internally argue about the rules - these seem to be the rules they've all played with their whole lives. It's a called ball-in-pocket (not called shot) game, e.g. "cinco en está lado" however way the five gets into the designated side pocket, which I forgot to mention, so it has a bit in common with the older (pre WS) BCA rules, I think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe it's my POV, but the way I see it the article should start with WSR as the "official rules" and then in subsequent sections instead of defining the whole rulesets, siimply state how they depart from the official rules. For instance for bar'recretaional rules (which I do think need to be prominent as they are so widely played--probably the most wide ruleset for the most common game in the U.S.) all that needs to be done, is state that (in contradistinction to official rules): wins (or not) if eight ball made on break, choice of group is decided on the break, if both groups pocketed then it's choice, no foul rules but for scratches, scratch penalty is from the kitchen (and can move object ball to foot spot if none available), most but not all venues make you call every nuance of every shot (rather than "ball and pocket"), the Player loses sometimes if he doesn't contact the eight ball when it's his object ball, eight ball has to go in "clean", and the alternating racking crap. That's may not be exhaustive but there's not much more. If those distinctions follow a treatise on the correct rules, little defining should be necessary, so the section would not need to be very long.

Doing it by defining each separate ruleset's variation for each official rule would be confusing I think, and an invitation for endless parenthetical notes. Plus, the way articles evolve, people add a one-off difference from some game to one section and then go their merry way. So then we have each official rule followed by variations from some other groups of indistinct rules, with each official rule being treated separately, some getting variations some not from the same league rules. It seems to me it would lead to an organizational mess.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Just wanted to make sure that the VNEA, etc., variations get in there, and are differenced from the mess of "bar pool" variations; many of them predate the WSR by a long way.  :-) NB: "Rules variations" or "variants" seems like a good section heading, perhaps with a three-"=" subsection header for each set discussed? I'm thinking in terms of the promised but presently vaporware article "templates" at WP:CUE. I guess eight-ball is as good a place as any to start developing that. NB: Also thinking that the "rack" article could really be folded entirely or almost entirely into the articles about the various games it covers. I think this sort of opens the more general question of what to do about equipment articles. My present take is that I'm not sure we actually need articles about cues, chalk, racking, tables, etc., rather than general mentions at Billiards (side point: Should we move it to Cue sport now?) and more specific details under particular games (nine-ball, etc.) or game-type (carom billiards, snooker, etc.) articles. This is probably a better pack o' questions for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports but I don't see any reason to not come to a two-person initial mini-consensus on the direction here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that subtopic articles should only be taken so far, but I don't think articles on specific items of equipment or specific things such as racking are too far. Let's look at rack (billiards) for example (and of course the elephant in the room is that I wrote the majority of that article, but I'm not just being protective): First and foremost, I can see someone coming to Wikipedia interested in how racking is done across many billiard games. Second, I can see someone coming to Wikipedia seeking clarity because of the confusing multi-use of the word (physical object; various types; used to describe the balls in starting position; the verb for placing the balls, etc.). Third, there is a quite limited number of specific objects and things in billiards of which racking is one. We don't and never will need an article on the foot spot--how much history can be found on that topic? How much room for expansion? It's a blackhole of content, but when it comes to racking, breaking, english, I think they can all have subarticles if someone is willing to take the time to write them (citing ulitmately to reliable sources:-). There is much room for expansion of racking, from other games, to the history of it, to primary manufacturers, to the Sardo tight rack (and the controversy that has arisen in professional play over its use), etc. Or take cuetips, they have a fascinating history and there has been much written about them. Did you known leather cue tips were invented in debtor's prison by Captain Francois Mingaud around 1823 who was later accused of sorcery for the amazing things he was able to do on a billiards table using them? Regarding cue sports, I have not really been following the debate. I'm not too concerned since if it's done or not done, the information will be retained and having been following the debate too much. If you have consensus, go for it.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the info will just have to be a little duplicative (in that the details on how to rack for eight-ball specifically need to be in the eight-ball article as well, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish interwiki

Unresolved

 – Eight-ball ⇒ Blackball (pool) split done, but Irish standard pool merge to latter not done.

OK, sorry. I thought that Irish standard pool and english 8-ball are the same, looking at the pictures. Aren't they? Can you explain me the difference between these two billiard games? Thanks for information, Maciek17 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They are very, very similar, which is why Irish standard pool has been slated for merging into blackball (pool). Irish standard pool is not quite the same as UK-rules eight-ball (blackball) - different enough that the interwiki is misinformation - but similar enough that the articles can be merged, and handled with simply an "Irish variation" section, if you see what I mean. Dealing with all of that has not been among the highest priorities on my WP to-do list, but it will be taken care of eventually.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Resolved

Unresolved

 – Better template documentation still needed.

Thanks for the reply. I think when I clicked on the template it only brought me to the image, and not the description and talk pages. The link is back now. The template's been around for 10 months or so, and I'm surprised I'm only seeing it for the first time. I was a bit doubtful about it, because I can see some users pasting it in to guillotine an argument - but it's only an indicator with nothing final about it.--Shtove 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Guillotine usage should be reverted and criticized. I think the template itself should be udpated with a note that such use would be abuse. I think it does already say that if anyone thinks a tagged topic is not resolved they should just remove the tag. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Unresolved

 – I still need to actually install this.

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SMcCandlish! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Strickland pics

Unresolved

 – I wrote to that Mike guy, but did not hear back. Try again.

Hi :)

AZ Billiards replied to my request to use their photo of Strickland. Here's what they said:

>Use any of the ones that are credited to Diana Hoppe. Just make sure that you credit her as 'Diana Hoppe - Pool Pics by Hoppe'.

>Thanks, >Mike

Does that make it sound like we can source their photo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelJHuman (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Probably. Do you have a last name and contact info for "Mike"? If you get me the details I can take care of this at the image page (use e-mail - see e-mail link at top of my userpage; other people's e-mail addresses shouldn't ever be put into WP pages, even talk pages, since spammers can harvest them, even from article histories!) If you want to do the license tagging and stuff yourself, a good trick is do something like 'Mike Smith, contactable at the site "AZBilliards.com", with a username of "MSmith"', so e-mail address harvesters won't recognize it as an e-mail address but any human could figure it out. But anyway, I know how to source pics with the right licensing templates, so it might be easier for me to deal with it. You could just forward me a copy of the e-mail. Might be good for more than one of us to have a copy of it anyway, just in case!

Oh! Can you write back and ask him if this means we can use other photos (of other players and stuff) by same photographer? Their "any of the ones" language suggests this, but I think we should know for certain. That could come in very, very handy. Or I can do it; either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching and virtual classroom

Unresolved

 – Still need to do all this (completely).

Are you interested in joining the Virtual Classroom for admin coaching? --Dweller 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. I've just created a section for you at User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom/Coaching. Pop along, say hello and get accustomed to the way the page works (it's a transclusion-fest) and the kind of tasks that get handed out. You can kick off by responding to some of The Transhumanist's general comments. --Dweller 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Are you still interested in joining this project? If not, I'll take down your section for you. --Dweller 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes! I just got swamped with other stuff. Tomorrow, ironically, I'm re-enrolling in the Univ. of New Mexico (finishing my degree is 14 years overdue). I'll guess I'll be getting educated on both sides. >;-) Sorry for the delay; I didn't realize it was interactive or time-limited in anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly interactive, but not at all time-limited. I just wondered if your lack of interaction <grins> was due to changing your mind! --Dweller 10:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no; there's all sorts stuff I still need to learn about the inner workings. In my year-and-a-half+ I've picked up a lot, but sometimes still put my foot in my mouth or trip over myself; see my last archive page and look for the "f.u."-image anti-barnstar I got from someone. While the message attached to it isn't entirely accurate (the MfD itself wasn't the problem, my extensive over-argumentation in it was), I did get the point. On the technical side, I've spent literally hundreds of hours DEFAULTSORTing biography articles' talk pages so that the embedded categories in the WikiProject tags on them would sort the names by family name, only to learn two days ago that (due to an apparent MediaWiki bug; this only happens on talk pages) the DEFAULTSORT magicword must come after any such project tags (and will then work as intended, despite the docs at meta suggesting that it would not; go figure). Neither of these are particularly adminnish of course. I don't right off-hand recall any serious misapprehensions of policy or procedures any time since last year. I guess that's a good sign. I just need to learn to let irrational arguments have their 15 minutes instead of trying to stomp on them, and actually research the effectiveness of what I'm doing before blowing incredible amounts of time on it. <sigh>. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it's a learning experience round here all right. The VC will mostly help by grilling you on your understanding and application of policy relating to the most adminnish stuff, like deciding on notability, POV issues, AfD arguments etc --Dweller 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I look fwd. to it. I suspect I'll be a "star pupil" on that stuff since I've already aborbed much of those areas (though I never pretend I have nothing to learn.) Perhaps an Advanced Course would be in order at some point, on things like the exactitudes of closing XfDs, and how exactly "consensus" is determined, especially if a plain "vote" count would appear to countermand it overwhelmingly; how to challenge a seemingly incautious or inattentive and clearly wrong closure of "keep" (by head count, 8 of 10 said "keep", but it was all "I like it" and "me too!" b.s.), and the rational consensus was clearly "delete", without getting into an adminfight; whether or not and how to respond to plaintive demands for userspacing of a deleted-with-overhwhelming-prejudice-I-mean-consensus >;-) article when it is at least somewhat likely that the user will just repost it under a diffent name, but could just as plausibly sit on it for a year working on it until it is properly sourced; what to do about a previously deleted article or category or whatever that has been restored in roughly its same form, but consensus may have changed as to the nature of that particular beast or its overarching classification; what to do with a repeat "eat my (expletive)" and "cripples are stuppid (expletive)s" vandal IP which may not be the same person but 2-8 dorks from the same school, and there is plenty of evidence of constructive edits from the same IP address in the same time frame (I confess now that I lean toward Zero Tolerance; this is not the WP of 2003 any longer...); how to archive, and set up for the next day, CfD or some other XfD page; what to do with quasi-vandals who never quite cross the line such that they can definitively be declared at least disruptive - just RIGHT on the edge, perhaps for weeks, backing off seemingly at the last moment and being real nice, but then jackassing again 6 days later; what to do about a fellow admin who keeps calling others "disruptive" or otherwise trasgressive simpl for disagreeing with or challenging him, and then dominating a discussion or revert wa<cough> I mean editing session (in a non-admin space, like Chocolate or WP:MASTODON or WP:BIOGRAPHY or whatever, rather than somewhere like WP:AN/I where other admins would notice (I mean, I'm not a party to the dispute, I just see it happening); how to avoid falling for a very plausibly presented (i.e. studiously engineered) "I've been wronged" story, where someone has "clearly" been blocked for insufficient reasons... until 5 admins ream you for so-and-so diff you didn't see, where "poor little" blocked kid made 15 death threats; how to deal with a blatantly obvious sockpuppet (even a metapuppet of another sockpuppet of another, ultimately of a real user who was community-banned 18 months ago), who is @#$%ing up RfAs, and seems to live for it, but you don't quite have enough proof, perhaps in part because checkuser was declined, as it sometimes is; or...

Those are the kinds of questions that come to me the most. The weird stuff, in a sense, but all of those are based at least in part on Real Stuff; they're not entirely hypothetical, though some are conflated with each other or sillified to get to the point faster.

Anyway, nap-time for me. I hasta' goto skool tumorrogh. Wish me luck. I haven't been to college since 1993! Or was it '92? Gah... Time flies when you move all over the continent, I guess... <ping-pong!>

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A link to your coaching page has been added to the Virtual Classroom box above. There are assignments waiting for you there. The Transhumanist    18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also a quiz for ya. Hope to see ya soon. The Transhumanist    22:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delays; I am swamped with summer university courses and "real work". I will try to get to this as time permits, and I have in fact been reviewing the material. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. We've got a classroom collaboration going. It's developing the article meaning of life to featured article status. Keep tabs on us, and jump in and help when you find yourself with some free time. The Transhumanist 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Still out-standing: I need to, um, do this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Transhumanist    00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Still out-standing: Need to actually do this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the Virtual classroom's main discussion area. The previous one got chopped up into student coaching pages.

The current topic of discussion is Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading. Please come and join us.

The Transhumanist    22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I will when active again; I have decided after a lot of thought on the matter that I probably will go for a second RfA at some point, so the VirtClass is back on my radar, as it seems that any evidence of admin mentoring and other forms of training are helpful at RfA in ensuring that people think you'll make a good admin. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Still out-standing: I need to do this still. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Trick shot

Unresolved

 – Turn below commentary into Talk:Trick shot/Comments, for future article improvement.

So do you have any ideas on Trick shot? I noticed you cleaned it up alittle and I want to say thanks for that, but what do you mean by "outright b.s. statements? lol, anyway so do you have any major ideas on how to improve the article?Vandalfighter101 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There were several nonsensical things said in it, four that I recall (the two I recall in detail right this minute after several beers at the Bob Dylan concert tonight <burp>) were that no one but Massey has ever made the boot shot - I've seen one of his competitors do it on TV over a year ago - and that trick shots evolved from artistic billiards, which is actually a comparatively new discipline (if anything the inverse is true; people have been doing trick shots for hundreds of years). No offense intended; sometimes my edit summaries are more grumpy than intended. Anyway, the two main avenues of improvement I see are using Shamos's New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards as a quotable source for a number of things (I was actually working on that, but my browser crashed and I lost a good 20min. worth of well-sourced edits. D'oh! I did manage to save {{Shamos1999}} to make citing it easier), and finding documentation for the Trick Shot World Championship and adding an entire section about that, with a (sourced) list of the events and the winners and runners up (both men and women for years in which two divisions exist); and there might have been more than one such event run by different sanctioners/sponsors over the decades (I'm not really sure). Also needs coverage of the Snooker Trick Shot Championship (may or may not be the actual name of the event; I misremember). And some discussion of who the most legendary players are. Later on, expanding the notable shots section would be in order, with actual illustrations of the shots (I think that CueTable.com's webware billiard table diagramming software may be useful for this). It isn't; I tried. Further down the line some home-made (i.e. copyright-unencumbered) videos illustrating a few trick shots would be cool. If I can master a few of them and figure out how the video-recording function of my new digital camera (mostly intended for still pictures) works, I might be able to pull that part off myself. Anyway, within a day or two I should have (re-!)contributed some sourced facts to the article, without my machine crashing in mid-edit. PS: Are you in WP:CUE#Participants yet? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ok im gonna organize this so I dont miss anything.

1. ok my mistake about the boot shot.
2. When I say that trick shot evolved from artistic pool I say that because while people have actually been doing trick shots for a long time, artistic pool was the basis of actually competeing.

1. Snooker trick shot championship should be covered I agree, but we should have a separate section for that.

1. having a section on the most legendary players would be a good idea but might cause some people to think that the article is expressing POV.
2. I definetly agree with what you said about us having illistrations of trick shots and also vid recordings.
3. yes I am in the oarticipant section.

<fontcolor="red">Vandal<fontcolor="black">fighter101 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sig seems to be busted, unless that was intentional. (I've broken mine plenty of times in experimenting with it!). Looking at it more closely, I think the problem is that it says "fontcolor" instead of "font color". Anyway:

1. No worries; stuff happens.
2. That would need to be sourced; I remain skeptical. Artistic billiards is almost totally unknown in the US except among the most hard-core billiards nuts, and the US fields hardly any professional competitors in it (most of them are European, Asian and South American); meanwhile trick shot exhibitions in the US date to at least the late 1800s, and by the 1920s were one of the main sources of additional income for US pool pros, between championships (and remain so today; many pros do trick shot exhibitions for special events all the time, aside from the championships). The relationship between pool/snooker-style trick shots, artistic billiards and finger billiards (which has no article yet) is a complex one. The evidence I've come across to date seems to suggest that finger billiards (practitioners of which can achieve amazing english) was the main inspiration for artistic, while pool/snooker trick shots were their own animal, but in the last 2 generations there has been a lot of crossover. Documenting any of that reliably, however, will be a real challenge. Note: I also was not aware that you were drawing a distinction between artistic pool and artistic billiards AND trick shots. The clear facts are that trick shots have been around for hundreds of years, artistic (carom) billiards has been around for several decades as an organized sport, and artistic (pocket billiards) pool is comparatively quite new, an adaptation of artistic billiards to pool tables via the influence of classic trick shots. 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Agreed; the US/pool and UK/snooker world championships should have their own subsections under "Competition" or whatever that section is called right now.
4. POV: I see what you mean; the way around that would be to profile world champions (and really in brief; if it's more than 2 sentences we're really talking about a stub player article instead).
5. Keen. I'm sure that will take a while. It would probably be more productive in the short term to document (televised competitions can be cited as sources with {{Cite episode}}) some of the more frequently used shots. I don't think we should go nuts here; probably ten very-well-described shots is more than enough. Per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a game guide, Wikipedia is not an instructional manual, etc.) we can't get too far into the detailia of how to set up these shots, just describe the basic layout, the desired result, and what makes it challenging).
6. Welcome aboard! Please check out WP:CUETODO if you have spare time; a lot of really basic work remains to be done, much less pushing things to Good and Featured Article status.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I wasn't aware of APTSA and Rossman's ArtisticPool.org, and their use of the term "artistic pool" in a sense distinct from "artistic billiards" (which is played on pocketless carom tables). I created a thoroughly-sourced overview at Trick shot of this "movement" based on those two sources. It definitely post-dates and was obviously inspired by artistic billiards, which is a couple of generations older. Because a.p. involves more than trick shots per se, I suspect that it will eventually need to be split into its own article. For now, I will ensure that Artistic pool redirects to it, and will also go update the artistic billiards article to mention it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chemical-importance

Unresolved

 – TfD not filed yet.

I am sorry, I have reverted your edits to this template. These articles should be categorised for lack of importance, not for lack of notability. These things are not the same. Since it was apparent that when they were in {{importance}} they were going to be deleted, because people not involved in any chemical wikiproject did decide that if they did not know the subject and could not see why it was important, it should be deleted (in stead of notifying a wikiproject and/or actually doing something about it). I had to revert/fight these prods/AfDs/template removals on a forthnightly basis, and being tired of that, it was decided to move them to an own template and category. So articles in that list are important enough, but the article does not state that yet, and therefore they are on a todo list of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. I guess a similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like a curious variant of WP:OWNership to me, as in "we're special and our articles are special and should not be subject to the same processes as everything else." I don't really care all that much, but really there is no such thing as "important" in Wikipedia, except in the context of Wikipedia 1.0 prioritization. The "importance" concept in the context of whether an article is important enough to exist in Wikipedia at all, was soundly rejected as early as 2004, and replaced with notability. The comparison to the music version of the template isn't appropriate, as that template especially has no reason to exist any longer, having been replaced entirely by {{Notability|music}} (look at the code of Template:Music-importance). Not a big deal to me, but you'll need much better justification than this if (more likely when) {{Chemical-importance}} comes up at WP:TFD. I'm likely to take it there myself, because this is not how WikiProjects are supposed to "importance"-tag articles for their own internal (or WP1.0) purposes; you instead use the |importance= parameter of the project's banner on the article's talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

United States Professional Poolplayers Association competition?

Unresolved

 – Needs to be restored and expanded; sourcing will be near-trivial.

I have removed [1] an unsourced statement you added [2]:

"The UPA is in competition with the Billiard Congress of America and the International Pool Tour for US market dominance in cue sports."

I know nothing about the subject but there was a help desk complaint and then I didn't want to just tag it as unsourced. PrimeHunter 12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It should have been tagged as unsourced, since it is a simple statement that can be sourced. It actually needs to be elaborated on, about what roles each organization playes in the market, but I don't have time to do that for now, so I won't revert-and-fact-tag it. Not a big deal really. FYI, the BCA is the nonprofit WPA affiliate in the US; as such it promotes and holds ranking events for the WPA World Nine-ball Championship and similar events. The UPA and it's WPBA all-women sister organization, which should have been mentioned there too, are long-standing WPA/BCA-independentent professional leagues run by nonprofit player co-ops, and hold directly-competing national and international events. The upstart IPT is a for-profit corporation that has organized national and international tournaments which again directly compete with all of the above for venues, TV coverage, sponsorship, and professional membership. This can all be trivially documented, by someone with a few hours to do it, but that is not me right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: What help desk complaint? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Nevermind; I found it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Naming Conventions MOS mess

Unresolved

 – Still need to look into this.

Further to my previous note, the issue of reconciling this bloated page with WP:MEDMOS is long overdue, and strengthens the case for more centralised coordination. Tony (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh. I hardly glanced at MEDMOS and I already have a headache. After I replace my medulla, can you remind me what "previous note" and "this bloated page" refer to? Do I need to check my off-WP e-mail? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you meant now. I'm not sure I want to get too deeply into the naming conventions, but I'll stop by. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Unresolved

 – Work remains to be done here.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_27#CompactTOCs_merge_and_rename has been closed, and the instructions set forth in your nom are endorsed. I, however, am not going to do the clean-up, it's too large of a task. RyanGerbil10(????????!) 03:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone volunteered to do at least some of the AWBing; am in touch. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge on List of champion snooker players

Unresolved

 – What to do about the big mess of snooker list articles is still an open question.

Hi, I would partially oppose the move. The page has had a patchy history, first being AfD'ed when it was titled "notable players" due to potential POV concerns. The compromise was "champion players" which, now that I look at the page, I am not really 100% with. The aim (and I think it is a very sensible aim) is to get together a article with the "names" of snooker. I would use the word notable but it has been stricken from the record as being POV. Essentially we want an article that highlights the big names in snooker - but not at the preclusion of having won the world championship. People like Jimmy White - and a more recent example in Ding - I think are important to be included in the ensemble without only having a mention in the ridiculously long List of snooker players. Thoughts welcomed (this can be cc'ed across to the article talk page if there are more noises, but they are pretty low traffic pages and issues). SFC9394 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that such an exercise as you describe is POV, by definition. At least being World Champ is an objective criterion. The "champion snooker players" list is almost certainly destined for AfD as soon as someone notices its subjectively inclusive nature. The World Champions list is safe, since it is documentable and objective, so no one can attack it on the grounds of it being nonencyclopedic. I've looked around and so far can't find a list like the champion players list at issue for any other sport or activity. No list of baseball greats or brilliant minds in chemistry or champion race car drivers. This strongly suggests to me that such lists aren't encyclopedic, and where they have been created they've either been deleted or converted to objective criteria like world record holders in baseball, Nobel prize-winning chemists, winners of the Indianapolis 500, etc. I'd prefer that WP:SNOOKER just merge them now and redir the subjective article to the objective one, rather than wait for someone to AfD it, because such an AfD might well draw attention to other WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. problems that are still rampant in the snooker bio articles, many of which are barely-altered copy-pastes (i.e. copyvios) from World Snooker's website and other previously published material. We have so much cleanup to do that creating additional questionable articles seems like a dangerous idea. I'll respond in less length over at the merge-to article's talk page, just so it's there and others have a chance at input either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of professional snooker players

I have suggested editing the 'List of snooker players' (on its talk page as well), to only the players with articles written on them. What do you think? Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is bigger than this. There are way, way too many lists of players (by this criterion or that); I have merge-tagged several of them, and brought the issue up at WT:SNOOKER. As for your specific proposal, I do not believe this necessary or even a good plan, as we know from experience that redlinks encourage article creation, and one does not have to pass WP:N in order to be mentioned in a list, only to have an article. Some would argue that everyone presently on the list (other than some probable vanity entries that have slipped in) are notable enough in their own right for articles anyway. So, I'm a little on the negative side of neutral with regard to your specific proposal, but strongly positive toward merging and cleaning up these player lists into a single comprehensive list-based article on snooker players. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that actually sums up my feelings as well really, I think editing the list like I suggested would be a negative thing to do on second thoughts. Samasnookerfan (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mosconi Cup

Unresolved

 – Article problems not fixed yet.

hi; first of all: sorry that i write as an IP, but i only have an account at german wikipedia. i have started and improved lots of articles about poolbillard there. i found some contradictions in the englisch Mosconi Cup article.

1. The player appearances are not uptodate. I tried to improve this on the german article with the help of the Historysection of the official Mosconi cup site. Maybe you (or someone else who acares about cue sports) could check that and use it for the english wiki-site too.

2. in the part "European representation" there is one player from Northern Ireland and one from Ireland, but in the Most appearances there is no irish (Northern Ireland belongs to UK, i know that). Could you tell me who of these players is irish or north-irish?

German Wiki page: [3]

History of Mosconi Cup (without 2007!): [4]

my Profile: [5]

Help would be nice - I even wrote something on the discussion page a few days ago, but there was no response, so i thought, i could try it here. thx in advance, Tmv23 from Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.216.148 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure who the Irish players are. I agree that the article needs updating, but I have been very busy lately so WP article work has not been at the top of my to-do list. PS: You may find it helpful to simply create a Tmv23 account here and use it; that way it will definitely be yours and no one else can use that username. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

MoS

Resolved

 – Looked into as requested.

Hi SMcCandlish. I listed some MoS issues at Some MoS issues. Also, I added and populated some subcategories to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines in hopes of getting a better handle on what are official MoS' page and what are not. If you have some time, please take a look. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Will look into the WT:MOS talk page item. Looks like your new subcats have been depopulated, so I assume they are destined for WP:CFD or something; not concerned either way, so long as the pages remain in the main cat., if they actually belong there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Year of birth missing (living people)

Resolved

 – Responded to at target talk page.

What do you think the consensus now is / should be about the relation of this category to Category:Living people? Should individuals be categorized with both? I've left the question at the category's talk page, and would value your input if the discussion's still going on when you get back. Hope you had a good break! Dsp13 (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They have to be in both. Remember that Category:Living people is a special category, not a normal one, mandated by WP:OFFICE for legal reasons. Every single article about a living person or living people (there are a number of articles about pairs or groups of people who are notable as pairs or groups rather than individually) must be in Category:Living people. To also add them to Category:Year of birth missing (living people) is not redundant, because of the special nature of the former category. In all other cases, it would be redundant (e.g. eight-ball should be in Category:Pool, but not its parent category, Category:Cue sports). I'll post a copy of this, with more detail, over at the cat. talk page in question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Nihongo3}}

Resolved

 – Looked into as requested.

I posted a couple of changes I would like made to the Nihongo3 template on its talk page. If you could respond there, that would be great. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Will look into it. Not sure why you are telling me in particular; I don't recall being involved with this template's creation or evolution. The italics thing is a valid WP:MOS point, regardless. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You created it and were the main editor on it (see the first edit and the history). I just thought you might want to know. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I have no recollection of that. It must have simply been an exercise in creating a differently formatted version from {{Nihongo}} and {{Nihongo2}}. <shrug> Thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Axes & Albinos

Unresolved

 – What to do with this category?

Hey there, SM -- I was on my way to leave you a note, but stopped off to check out your user page. Of course, I had to read through the litany of amusing items. Your pseudo-Taoist proverb re axe-grinding was terrific. I laughed my proverbial ass off, and then sent it on to my son, who I'm sure will do likewise. I especially like the short version! :)

Okay, so the original reason for coming here was to leave you a note about Category:Albinistic artists and entertainers -- which I was looking at after I spotted it in Category:In popular culture. I can sort of see why you thought it belonged there -- but what it really needs is a parent cat or two in the area of artists, entertainers, performers, etc. You'd have a better idea than I of what's appropriate, as I'm only familiar with a couple of them. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. You are right that I didn't think through that one very hard. Eventually we might want a cat. for albinistic musicians, another for albinistic actors, etc., but for now there's just the one cat. for albinistic celebrities in general, and they are few. Maybe the cat. should be renamed to be even more generic (Category:Albinistic celebrities maybe). Not sure, really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Candish

Resolved

 – Request responded to.

Hey Candish this is (Hpt lucky (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)), You are only memebr of Wikiproject Carrom. I want to ask you few questions. I have to copy the articles from various website to complete the articles on wikipedia so can i copy it as i am member of carrom federation and they will not give any kind of copyright violation to me. Italy Carrom, UK Carrom, etc etc many carrom federations are there whats youir view please tell. (Hpt lucky (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia would still consider it a copyright violation and delete them. You need to use the information in the other web pages to write articles in your own words, and cite the original pages as sources, but you can't simply copy-paste the material from the sources. Also, I strongly recommend keeping the number of Wikipedia articles to a minimum. For example, there should probably be one article on the International Carrom Federation, with sections in it for material on the regional/national affiliates, but if you create an article for Italy Carrom and another for UK Carrom, etc., they will probably be deleted as failing the Wikipedia Notability Guideline. As you probably recall, the articles on various bits of carrom equipment were already merged into the main Carrom article for the same reason. The goal is article quality rather than quantity. Hope this helps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TimRoseTheGambler1977FrontCover.jpg)

Resolved

 – Restored image to proper article.

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:TimRoseTheGambler1977FrontCover.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Top 16 snooker players

Thanks for tidying up this article, I was intending to change the title anyway and also add years instead of yrs. Samasnookerfan (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. External editors are good for that sort of thing (search-replace function); took about 30 seconds. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken! I have become a lot more experienced on Wikipedia than when I started, as i'm sure you have noticed, and I intend to improve a lot more snooker related articles. Is it possible to explain what you are saying about references again, because i'm still not quite sure what you mean (I still have a lot to learn on Wikipedia!), such as by giving an example? Samasnookerfan (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CITE for the details. As an example, see the source code of William A. Spinks. If you go down and edit the "References" section, you'll see that they are not actually in there, they are embedded in the text of the article at various points. So, instead of just adding "Magazine Article X" by Joe Bloggs in the Sunday Complainer, 3 June 2008, as a source in the references section, without any indication what particular fact(s) in the article it supposedly source, you put it right into the article text with <ref> in the place(s) where something in the article is sourced by this particular reference. WP:CITE has instructions on the use of <ref>. The Spinks article is a good, short example of its use, since it shows single-use references like some patents, as well as some that are referred to several times in the article (the markup is different on subsequent uses - you just use <ref name="Whatever" /> by itself to refer to a previous <ref name="Whatever">a bunch of source details here</ref>), and it shows how to use all this stuff with the {{Cite}} family of templates, which provide consistently-structured source information - {{Cite book}}, {{Cite web}}, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:41, August 16, 2008 (UTC)

So basically describing what the references are intended to source, am I right? That makes sense but some are self explanitory. Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, describing the publication details of the source, and putting the source citation immediately after anything in the article that it is supposed to be sourcing. Open William A. Spinks or Five-pins in edit mode and you'll see how it works. PS: The sources are often "self-explanatory" if you go and individually read them. We try not to force our readers do that (though they are free to do so, of course; that's why we give them URLs and ISBN numbers of books, and so on). They should be able to look at the "References" section and see: What the piece's title is, where it was published, what the name of the overall site/book/magazine/whatever is that it was taken from/appears in, who wrote it, and when, so they can decide if they want to examine the source in more detail or not, decide how much they feel they can trust the source, etc. Without editors going this extra mile, every source just shows up as yet another URL that the reader knows nothing about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, very few articles seem to 'go the extra mile', but it is certaintly helpful as a reader to go more in depth about the source. Samasnookerfan (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Art forgery

How dare we intimate that cues are works of art!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Just a buncha damn kindling. Did you see my other msg., on your talk page? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I did and responded yesterday. Left you a bunch of Spinks notes as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, duh! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you attest to the notability of Eddy Merckx (billiards player) ?

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to Talk:Eddy Merckx.

I think he's got to be an inherently less likely search item than the greatest cyclist to have ever lived. Note that Michael Jordan, a comparable case, is not a disambiguation page; rather, there is a Michael Jordan (disambiguation). A {{for}} can serve a reader seeking the billiards player just fine. I gotta say I'm kinda scratching my head over this page move, especially as there are hundreds of internal links that clearly are bound for the cyclist.

WP:DAB states:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic.

I really think the cyclist is that well-known, primary topic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the billiardist is a world champion in arguably the most difficult cue sport of all time (and, world-wide, the third most popular, after eight-ball and nine-ball pool, with snooker being fourth), and he's a current player. The cyclist is long since retired and no longer in the sports (or other) press with any regularity. The new page move system, I thought, was supposed to update links like that automatically (it says that it does, on the move page), but it will be a fairly simple AWB task to fix them. I won't proceed with that just yet, since you dispute the move to begin with, and it would suck to spend an hour updating the links and then another hour un-updating them later should the move turn out to be a bad idea. Anyway, my reading of the "primary topic" maxim applies to something like eight-ball, with derivative uses at a DAB page (magic eight-ball toy, eight-ball as a slang term for 1/8 oz of cocaine, various album names, etc., etc.) clearly deriving from and subordinate to the original. I don't see that two world champion sportsmen are in a relationship like that, even if one, by accident of parental whim, has a namesake in the other; nothing about what makes Merckx the billiards player notable is in any way derivative of or subordinate to the talents or other aspects or qualities of the elder, cyclist Merckx. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: It doesn't strike me as necessary that Michael Jordan not be DAB page, just permissable, as none of the others rise to his level of notability. If Michael Jordan (Irish politician) somehow managed to reunify Ireland, or otherwise become a bigger deal, I would expect the former to change to a DAB page. Also, I don't see any evidence that the quoted WP:DAB passage does, or was intended to, apply to {{hndis}} pages as well as {{disambig}} pages, as it seems to me to be couched firmly in terms of non-human disambiguation (personal names are neither "terms" nor "phrases" as those words are generally used). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS: It's important to keep in mind that en.wp is written for all English speakers. Those in Hong Kong, Singapore, etc., where three-cushion billiards is a huge deal, may well care a lot more about this Eddy Merckx than the cyclist. I honestly don't know whether it is fair to think of this in terms of sheer numbers - clearly the majority of en.wp users are Americans, followed by the British, Canadians and Australians, but does that really mean anything? Open question, I suppose. Another is whether cycling by its nature as an Olympic sport (billiards is still pending with the IOC even after 20 years, for reasons to do with organizational in-fighting over international rules <sigh>) automatically "trumps" billiards. I tend to say "no" on that one, as lots of notable sports (American football, baseball, etc.) are not Olympic either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PPPS: It seems to me that there would inevitably be massive PoV problems with applying the "primary topic" guideline to humans, as this would often entail enforcing a highly personal sense of who is more "important" out of a list of two or more notable persons - a popularity contest, basically, tinged with individual and systemic bias on a topical basis as well ("I like basketball and think cricket is stupid, so the basketball player must necessarily be the 'primary topic'...", "basketball is popular, and jai alai isn't [in America and the UK], so the basketball player must necessarily be the 'primary topic'..." - that sort of thing) much of it probably subconscious. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's centralize discussion here. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Hey Stanton. I left a message for you here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Keen. Replied back there as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike White (baseball)

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to WT:NCP.

Just a friendly note on your move of Mike White (baseball) to Mike White (baseball player). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) says that the original version is preferred.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Various alleged naming conventions created by WikiProjects, like that one was, frequently conflict with the naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines overall (just as WikiProject style "guidelines" often conflict with the WP:MOS), and do not represent a WP-wide consensus, but only that of a small number of topically-focused editors, sometimes just a single editor, that no one bothers to contradict until his/her/their advice actually starts causing problems or its conflicts with actual consensus are noted. We have to deal with this sort of thing all the time at WT:MOS. There's an ArbCom ruling that (among various other things) says categorically that project-created would-be guidelines cannot trump Wikipedia-wide genuine guidelines arrived at by large-scale discussion and consensus. One of those is that disambiguation parentheticals for persons be descriptive of the person - John Smith (chemist) not John Smith (chemistry). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) needs to be corrected to agree with larger-scale guidelines that have a lot more buy-in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide links to the ruling for my edification? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Right off hand, no; it came up and was linked to at WT:MOS or WT:MOSNUM, but that was probably over a year ago, so it is buried in one archive page or another. I may go look for it when I get some time, as the issue will probably come up again. I'm not sure it's all that important though - the matter is pretty much common sense to begin with. Policies and guidelines don't get to be ignored with impunity by an editor simply because he/she is in a "club" of 10 or 100 editors who feel the same way, out of many thousands with a consensus in the opposite direction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you find it, I'd love to have the link.

Just to be clear, my intention is to not ignore policies and guidelines. I just need to know, from the source, what they are so I can bring it to the attention of the "club of 10 or 100 editors". The reason Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) was written was because of the then chaos in naming the articles. If it contradicts ArbCom rulings or the MOS, I and others will argue strongly that it be changed.

I sense a lot of frustration from you over this issue, but please don't direct it at me. I'm not the villain here -- I'm trying to do what's right, as I'm sure you are too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No hostility intended. It is a little frustrating, as we have to deal with out-of-control WikiProjects at WP:MOS and its subpages fairly often, and they tend not to listen, but you don't seem like that. :-)

Anyway, I have yet to locate the arbcom case in which this is buried, but it's not really important, as there's a higher authority on the topic to begin with, namely WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy, not a guideline: "[Consensus] always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." Ergo, if a WP policy or WP-wide guideline conflicts with a WikiProject-written "guideline" the latter is subordinate to the former. If the project members feel strongly about it, they should work on the talk page of the main policy/guideline to get wider consensus for an exception, or a change to the policy/guideline. WP:CONSENSUS continues, "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action."

In one ArbCom decision, the principle that wayward WikiProject "guidelines" can be brought into conformity with long-established policies or guidelines without longwinded justification is affirmed: "Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it."

As for the specific case at hand, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), in the section on bracketed qualifiers, uses nothing but "-er" type examples (drummer, player, musician, chemist) that are descriptions of the article topic as a person, not of their occupation (drumming, sports, music, chemistry). More to the point WP:DAB states, "For biographies, it is generally preferred to use a formal disambiguating noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation. ... For example, Sam Biguation (guitarist), not Sam Biguation (rocker), Sam Biguation (music), Sam Biguation (rock music), Sam Biguation (the Southwest Spice Band), Sam Biguation (1974–2006), nor (per the simplicity principle above) Sam Biguation (rock guitarist), unless Sam Biguation (guitarist) itself needs to be disambiguated between Sam Biguation (classical guitarist) and Sam Biguation (rock guitarist)." Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I actually wrote most of that, a couple of years ago (the Southwest reference is a memory-jogger). Anyway, I just tightened that up a little by removing "it is generally preferred to" from the first part, an edit I suspect will stick, since guidelines should not offer wishy-washy "maybe"-ish guidance, and exceptions were already mentioned after this passage, making the wording redundant. Now that I think about it again, I actually wrote a whole lot of WP:NCP. I'd completely forgotten! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the examples from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and WP:DAB. I was able to quickly find the paragraphs in question by searching on the text, and now I can bring it up at WP:MLB and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). The only question remaining is why couldn't I find it the three times I read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) recently? Must be old age setting in. *grin* Again, thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. It's not just baseball either; this has been a problem in basketball, ice hockey, and rugby as well. I think what needs to happen is WP:SPORTS needs to have a debate about this, come to a consensus on it, and if that small consensus differs from the larger consensus at WP:NCP, then convince WP:NCP to change so that the conflict no longer exists. I really don't care what NCP says (on this particular matter) one way or other, but I'll try to "enforce" what it does say, otherwise we might as well not bother having naming conventions at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've raised this issue at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt", and also notified WT:SPORTS about the discussion. It should probably be centralized there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update the discussion I started at WT:Naming conventions (baseball players) and move it over to WT:NCP#Sports "revolt". --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I love your example name! Brought a much needed smile to a hectic day. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Wanderone, Jr.

Resolved

 – Remaining issues with my edits to this article are being hashed out at Talk:Rudolf Wanderone, Jr.

There are some references that do not appear to be coded properly, for example a number of references in the "Early life and career" section. I have no idea how to fix them; can you take a look at them and see what you can do? Otto4711 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure; I'm good at fixing those things. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they all seem to be correct now. A few were red when I first saved the article, but I already fixed those. If it still doesn't look right to you, I think maybe you are simply not familiar with Template:Rp. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back at the style guides!

I guess you took an extended break from the maelstrom. Hope your studies are proceeding well. Tony (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, it's been a bit grueling but I'm getting there. Went to Mexico for 5 weeks on an intensive Spanish course (I get to skip an entire year of Spanish as a result). Should graduate by summer 2009 (finally!). I just now fixed something at WP:MOS, about spacing of adjacent quotation marks, that has been bugging me for over a year. I wouldn't be surprised if someone reverts it, but the change needs to stick, because the original advice is semantically just plain wrong. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RFA/SMcCandlish

Hello. I saw that you'd like to be an admin and that you postponed the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2. I think you'd be a good admin, and I think you have a darn good chance at passing. Can you be persuaded to accept the nomination? WODUP 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think on it. I have actually been considering it again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was actually quite surprised when I took care of a few of your {{editprotected}} requests the other day - I thought you were already an administrator! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<Shrug> After my first RfA was sabotaged by a (later self-confessed!) sockpuppet, I didn't bother trying another, plus I've just been sort of busy, and a little concerned about picking up the bucket if I don't have time to do a good job mopping. But I've been back more actively lately. I got granted the ability to use admin rollback some while ago (without asking for it), and think I've used it responsibly (I mostly use undo, because it has an edit summary I can add an rationale to), and I also see block log stuff and other admin-ish things in my watchlist (maybe part of rollback, or maybe some other quasi-admin thing someone set me up with, I'm not sure). I try to act like an admin as much as possible (thinking in terms of policy, not my preferences, and acting in accord with what's best for the encyclopedia instead of what's most convenient for me), so I get the "I thought you already were an admin" comment pretty often. :-) If I do go forward with this, I will probably take a lot of lead time to pre-prepare answers to common questions and also pre-prepare responses to some predictable attacks (I've been embroiled in some pretty intense policy debates here, some while back, and did not emerge with everyone my best friend). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Urodela move

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

I am planning to combine the Urodela article into Salamander, probably in the next 72 hours. StevePrutz (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'm shocked this hasn't happened years ago! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits and conduct at WP:NCP

I assumed that your original points and discussion were made in good faith and that even your edits to the guidline during the discussion may have been. However since you seem to be making changes to the guidline regularly and for some time, with no discussion or consensus and then claiming that they are long standing consensus I am starting to think you are editing in bad faith. Your edits today are an example of what I am talking about. The responsibility is yours to prove that there is consensus for that. There is blatently no current consensus for what you are trying to reinsert to the guidlines as demonstarted by the talk page and you have not provided any link to a previous discussion to demonstarte a previous consensus. You appear over time to have added many things arbitrarily to the guidlines so I would ask that you please refrain from editing WP:NCP until the discussion has reached consensus. You are bordering on an edit war and WP:3RR can apply regardless of actually reaching three edits, so counting is not the problem, intent is. Paul  Bradbury 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You also now appear to be in violation of WP:CANVAS since having read your cross-posting I would not consider it impartial, you do not simply invite users to go and read the discussion you provide your own editorial of that discussion. Paul  Bradbury 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a few breaths before wandering into a dispute you have no direct part in and evidently haven't been following closely, since failure to do so in this case has obviously lead you into misreading virtually everything about it.

1. I am a regular editor of the MOS and numerous other guideline pages; I know what I am doing, and am not a noob.
2. "Making changes to the guidline regularly and for some time" isn't true at all; I have rarely edited either WP:DAB or WP:NCP, as they have mostly been stable and adequate (while MOS and many of its subguidelines have not).
3. You do not appear to understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. WP:BOLD is policy. People do not have to discuss things before making changes. When they do not, they are often reverted. When they do not and don't know what they are doing or talking about, they almost always get reverted. Normal part of the WP:BRD process. When they don't but do know what they are doing and talking about, their edits are often accepted, as my minor addition of clarifying wording to WP:DAB was. Silence generally equals assent to changes, and this is especially true of guideline pages watchlisted by thousands of active editors. Any change that is against consensus is usually reverted very quickly. Simple observation of actual bio article naming in practice demonstrates that even how it was originally written was very accurate, except that it failed to account for justifiable exceptions; that failure has been rectified in the latest version of it.
4. Over six months of stability of othat material in one of the most important and guarded guidelines on the entire system is very clearly a long-standing consensus (even if, as noted, the wording needed improvement).
5. When someone deletes long-standing guideline material, the burden of proof is on the deleter (User:Francis Schonken in this case), not on the restorer of the material, regardless where they restore it to. (In this case I chose WP:NCP out of respect for Schonken's otherwise sensible decision that WP:DAB's section on human name disambiguation would be better as a simple cross reference to the larger guideline on the topic.
6. I don't have to provide a link to previous discussion to establish consensus; the fact that it's been a part of WP:DAB for over half a year already demonstrates that. Under your view, about 99% of Wikipedia could be deleted as not having consensus, since most edits are not discussed but made boldly, and adjusted or reverted if necessary.
7. You are further misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS in the supposition that undoing a deletion requires a new consensus discussion, or that a small number of vocal editors can declare a localized "consensus" (e.g. a few people in WT:NCP) against Wikipedia-wide consensus (over six months of stable WP:DAB history). WP:CONSENSUS quite specifically rejects this notion (twice in two different passages, even).
8. Furthermore, you are probably unaware of the history of the debate at hand, in which I went to pains to notify the four most-affected wikiprojects on sports that were in conflict with the original guideline wording at issue, of the debate. I didn't have to do that, but I did. As a result, the currently active participants at WP:NCP have been swollen by editors from those projects (the majority of the current commentators are from there), and this is a major biasing factor.
9. Next, I don't think you are parsing WP:CANVAS correctly. Just as I notified the affected projects (and some other relevant pages) of the original dispute about whether sports projects should use "John Doe (baseball player)" vs. "John Doe (baseball)", so I notified the relevant projects and pages with regard to the new, more general debate about whether to retain anything about this in the guidelines at all. This is courteous. I'm sorry you don't feel that the message was neutral enough, but it reads neutrally to me: I've described, in factual not heated terms, what the issue is, and presented both sides of the argument. I even put the opposition's opinion first so as not to appear to be denigrating them. A close read can probably tell that I have a position on the matter, but I'm clearly not trying to sway anyone's opinion; simple disclosure of a position is actually also polite, as a disclaimer.
10. I am not bordering on an edit war, and I'm very well aware of WP:3RR and of how many reverts I made (2). I did not even go to three, because I'm also well aware that being punished for doing 4+ reverts does not "entitle" one to do 3. I stopped editing, sought advice (very clearly stipulated as such - advice, not redress of a grievance) at WP:ANI, opened a discussion on the talk page, and did not even revert the change to WP:DAB, which would actually clearly be justified. My two reverts were as fully justified as possible in the space of an edit summary; such reverts are often successful when the other parties realizes your purpose better and stops overreacting. This is normal WP editing, too. So, please stop being so alarmist.
11. Why are you showing up on my talk page to demand that I stop editing a guideline until discussion plays out, when I've already obviously done so, opening the discussion myself on the talk page, and following up the last revert of my last edit with a null-edit comment that I'm not going to transgress 3RR and have opened discussion on the talk page? Have you actually done anything to verify the opinions you are forming off-the-cuff? Do you understand that lambasting me for editing you disapprove of and then lambasting me for opening discussion (but in a way you disapprove of) sounds schizophrenic?
12. Finally, I am not acting in bad faith, you are simply assuming it: You assume I am constantly making changes to those guidelines, when in fact I've barely touched either of them in many months other than for typographical fixes and clarity twiddles. You assume that I don't know what I'm doing and am getting into editwars just for the hell of it, when I clearly have a WP:POLICY-informed purpose to what I'm doing. You assume that I'm ignoring WP:PROCESS, when in fact I'm trying to enforce it. You assume that I'm trying to push something against consensus, when in fact I'm really, really obviously trying to defend long-accepted material against deletion by people who have not gained consensus for its removal, except among the 5 of them, and it is material that is followed by around 95% of editors who bother reading guidelines at all. You assume I'm canvassing when in fact I'm doing routine notification of a debate at point A that is likely to have strong impact on points B, C, D and E, and without stating an opinion either way on what that impact might be, while also not misleading anyone into thinking I am not a party to the debate, and even suggesting that I may be completely wrong and that no such guidance will appear at all at the end of the consensus process. You assume that my edits to guideline pages are "arbitrary", while if you'd actually tracked my participation in policy matters over time you'd see they are anything but (aside from Tony1, I've probably had more impact on WP:MOS and its subpages than any other editor, from 2007 to early 2008, and about 9/10s of what I've put into them are still in them, suggesting that I actually have a fantastic policy-editing track record). I could go on, but you should get the point by now.

Next time you feel like criticizing an editor, please try to be more constructive and less attacking about it, and don't assume so much. "When you ass-u-me, you make an ass out of both u and me" ( - Robert Anton Wilson).

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not looking for a fight fight please keep this WP:CIVIL. I didn't wander in to a discussion that I havn't been part of, I went there, commented, to which you responded and then continued reading.

1. Then you should know better
2. Over the last few days you have made regular changes and most of the changes under discussion seem to be yours
3. You do not seem to understand WP:CONSENSUS or WP:PROVEIT. Just because someone didn't spot an edit that was incorrect does not make it correct, anything controversial as this evidently is should be sourced (in this case by a discussion that shows consensus)
4. It appears to only have been stable because it was neither discussed or enforced
5. Says who? What is your source for that comment? That appears to contradict WP:PROVEIT
6. Again proof of consensus is the burden of the person adding not subtracting. Time is mentioned nowhere
7. Fair enough, I came from a post from WP:FOOTY which was placed from another editor
8. Like I said it just reads that way to me and given the way you have been acting I am starting to assume bad faith rather than good.
9. I wasn't aware of your WP:ANI request, I assume you will be following the advise and ceasing further edits until this has played out in the discussion page (which is all that I have asked you to do)
10. I didn't demand, I requested. It was not obvious you would refrain from your edits, just that you wouldn't make any more until the 24 hours had past.
11. I havn'y lambasted you for opening the discussion I think that is appropriate, I have only asked you refrain from editing the things that are in discussion until that discussion has been concluded.
12. Of course I am assuming, since I am unable to read your mind I cannot accurately verify your intent I can only assume it based on your actions.

Next time you respond please keep it WP:CIVIL

Paul  Bradbury 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am not looking for a fight" - What you initially wrote suggested otherwise, but I'll take you at face value on that; your repeated suggestion of bad faith makes this more difficult than necessary. Bad faith is essentially a claim that I am trying to harm Wikipedia or abuse it to serve my own ends (what evil plot or profit scheme would be enhanced by making sure that WP bios are disambig'd consistently?). That you were actually in the discussion: Sorry, I didn't remember; I thought I had kept track of who was in the debate, and evidently failed to do so. My bad.

I don't think there was anything particularly uncivil about my response; irritable maybe, but you'd be irritated to if someone popped by to accuse you of bad faith editing for reasons that to you seemed completely contrived or mistaken. But it hasn't been long since I wrote it; maybe tomorrow it will seem less than civil to me on a later re-read. Hard to say. Will endeavor to be more consciously civil this htime around.

1. "Know better": Cute, but non-substantive, since I don't see that I'm doing anything nefarious or stupid.
2. I've edited recently. So? If an issue is raised and it can be solved with an edit, it is a good idea to try to resolve it with an edit. People have objected, I've stopped editing. So you can stop beating this horse.
3. CONSENSUS and PROVE: <shrug> As I've said, I think its you who is misinterpreting policy. Stalemate on that one, then, I guess. For one thing, WP:PROVE it applies to articlespace, not guidelines. People sometimes add a {{fact}} to a guideline page as a smartass comment on something they find dubious, but we all know that the process is different. We are not trying to verify WP:POLICY matters with external sources - there is nothing to prove - but rather building them from within from our own ideas, insights, agreements, lessons and experience. In guidelines, the burden of proof is still on the one who wants to change something, as Schonken did by deleting something the deletion of which is now disputed; much earlier, I added something (to WP:DAB) the addition of which was not challenged. WP:CONSENSUS: "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." Over six months in one of our highest-profile guidelines, addressing one of the most frequent disambiguation needs on the entire system, is clearly "adequate exposure" beyond all shadow of doubt. The principal difference is that in an article, everything must be sourced, while in policyspace everything must make sense for Wikipedia and work well; destroying guidance that prevents utter chaos in biographical article names does not make sense or work well. Also it is not "evidently controversial" - it has been very stable and well-accepted. That approximately 5 to 10 editors, who I effectively targeted by notifying their projects that I was criticizing their disambiguation practices, are resistant to my ideas all of a sudden isn't evidence of any change of consensus, nor any genuine "controversy". It was only fair that I notify them of the criticism and where it was located, and I fully expected to catch hell for it. I have a thick skin, and I don't mind taking one for the team when I feel that the issue is important enough to settle firmly. I harbor no hard feelings, as my WP:ANI clearly indicates. Further, advice in guidelines is neither "correct" nor "incorrect"; rather, it either has consensus or doesn't. Something stupid does not survive in a major WP guideline, especially if it is a change that was not hashed out beforehand. Mine survived. It did age and needed revision (already done - that's the version I'm trying to put back in and which I'm being reflexively reverted on just because people's tempers are hot), and it wasn't perfect, but the community had over half a year to raise and issue with it and did not. Schonken's deletion, however, has been immediately contested by me, and I know there were a couple other parties in the original debate that supported that language and said so (I do not know if they have commented on the most recent debate point; I've been editing other stuff besides this material, so I'm starting to lose track of who said what, where and when). Still, irritated or not, those editors have a right to have their say, thus the consensus discussion I opened, which even expressly puts on the table the idea that the entire passage could be removed with no trace if consensus really wants that, and that maybe I'm just full of it. Yeah, that's a really, really bad faith way to do things, isn't it?
4. Old discussion; enforcement: Not everything needs to be discussed. Self-evidently sensible things just work. When over time practice changes and the wording no longer matches the practice, they need to be adjusted, but it very rarely the case in WP that old advice that can be updated should instead be discarded entirely. Not enforced? I'm not sure what you mean. Guidelines are not policy, and usually not treated as policy (WP:N kind of is treated as policy at WP:AFD, but it's an unusual case), so "enforcement" isn't applicable. Editors by and large have been abiding by it, except where it made things difficult for them as it did at some sports projects.
5. Burden: WP:CONSENSUS says so: "[G]enerally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. ... If the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted." Please just see the flowchart image there (it is Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg, for your convenience. I'm going to speak in terms of it here: There was a "very" previous consensus, that what WP:DAB said way back when was good enough. I and various others disagreed with it and I made an edit to address that issue. It was not edited further with regard to that addition, ergo it was a new consensus. (Especially after 6 months! Generally, one would declare a new consensus after a few days). Seeking a quick-'n'-dirty way to end the sports naming dispute, Francis simply deleted the material in the course of redirecting the DAB section to NCP (this was no accident; in his report of the change, he made it clear that the entire purpose for that change was to get rid of that passage and thus end the dispute by fiat). So, back to the chart: There was a previous consensus (the guidance I inserted months ago at DAB). Francis made an edit (the deletion and soft direct to NCP). The page was edited further, and I at least did not agree with the change, so no new consensus; go up the chart into the discussion phase, which is where we are now. Please note that nothing in this process indicates that the previous consensus just disappears. If no new consensus emerges we know that other processes take over, such as dropping the matter and cooling off (XfDs close with "no consensus" and keep things the way they were before the proposed deletion when there is no consensus for the change, for good reason), taking the matter to any of at least 4 levels of mediation, going to ArbCom if something is really wrong, etc. If the "Implement" phase of that chart never leads to "New consensus" then the situation is a WP:FILIBUSTER, which is considered a form of disruptive editing. I hope this is clear now. My attempt to restore the material was simply an attempt to return to "Previous consensus" (albeit with updates that should make the sports editors happier by more explicitly recognizing that the general preference here cannot be forced on them if it causes problems). So that was an edit, resulting in further editing that did not agree with that change, thus discussion phase, which should lead to new implementation and edit that hopefully will not result in further changes and disagreement and require another discussion phase and editing round.
6. Burden on adder not deleter: WP:CONSENSUS says the opposite, as quoted above. Adding, deleting or simply altering can all trigger a need to reach consensus, but deletion is especially likely to do so. Schonken's deletion at WP:DAB was not discussed there, and only discussed at WT:NCP, among a group of active participants that largely consisted of people unhappy with the guideline, specifically because those are the ones I made a point to invite so as not to marginalize them! I don't even regret doing it. The discussion has been more tooth-gnashy than necessary, but good things are coming out of it, especially the sports projects actually standing up and saying that they need the guidelines to reflect their needs on this matter, instead of just quietly ignoring the guidelines, which as led to a lot of sporadic editwarring over sports bio article titles. I really do have a WP-serving purpose in mind when I stir the pot like this. After all is said and done, and (as I believe will happen) some version of the language is restored, that keeps most DAB'd articles consistent, but also allows sports and other projects with particular needs the leeway they need without having to constantly cite WP:IAR at people and get in arguments, then everyone will be happier and things will work much better. It's a "no pain, no gain" situation, but the gain is right there within reach
7. "Fair enough". Okay.
8. Bad faith: I hope I've changed your mind.
9. Stop editing pending discussion: Yes. The dead horse is now just a puddle of goop.
10. No reason to think I wouldn't be a disruptive editor: Please, just AGF, and check my userpage. I've been on this system for years, and heavily active enough to have over 35,000 edits at this point. I've never been blocked for anything, much less 3RR. Editors like that don't go around violating policies. Why would I get myself blocked just to make a WP:POINT or something? Plenty of people have been blocked for 3RR because they've gamed the system by doing precisely 3 reverts a day, clearly violating the spirit of the policy. And it's just not productive. If people can't get the point or do get it and honestly disagree with it after 2 well-explained attempts, it's time for more discussion, in detail.
11. Didn't know about ANI, etc. Okay, I understand that. Maybe it was a timing thing - I could have been doing the ANI and discussion opening while you were writing here. I shouldn't ass-u-me either...
12. Assumptions: And I didn't mean "be psychic", I meant ask if uncertain, look into the background more, take more time to formulate an opinion about other editors, etc. It's not like there's some emergency here and you are the first responder. If worse had somehow come to worst, that page would simply have been temporarily protected by ANI, as a routine "there's editwarring going on" block. As Douglas Adams says, "Don't panic!" :-)

I think that addresses it all (I'm not 100% sure the numbers match up right - your #7 seems to address my original #8, but it ought to be clear enough). I also hope this is coming across as more civil. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Glossary editing link

I was just making a few edits to the glossary and when I clicked on the edit link next to bar pool I was taken to the edit page for baulk rail's definition. This displacement seems to hold true for many other entries I just checked. Many possibilities present themselves such as that: this is a long-standing problem in this article having to do with the large number of entries the software has to parse; something isolated to my browser; a new and temporary sitewide bug; etc. But I also though it might have something to with with CompactTOC8, anchor codes, things you know about. I don't know that you have any ability to provide a fix, but I thought you'd be a good person to inform.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't reproduce the problem (using a SeaMonkey, a Mozilla-based browser with the same core codebase as Firefox, under MacOS X). What browser and platform are you using? Is it still happening? My initial guess is that something like a {{Anchors}} tag was not closed, and some browsers are confused by this, and some aren't. I'll search the source code for that error first. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I did find an unclosed {{Anchors}}; fixed that. Is it still happening? PS: {{CompactTOC8}} wouldn't do anything like that; all it does is draw the ToC boxes. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Windows XP, Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1. The error is still happening for me using Firefox, but I checked and using both IE and Safari the error is not reproduced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just chalk it up to bad electrons. If I restart I bet it goes away. Thanks for looking!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Frakkin' weird. Will have to fire up the Wintel machine, I guess... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it is working fine for me in WinXP, Firefox 2.0.0.16. I think maybe your cache just needs to be flushed. Lemme know? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this thread

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Wikipedia_talk:Accessibility#Heading structures. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there. Pigs raises good points, but the "revolutionary" tone isn't going to carry the day. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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?--danielfolsom 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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.--danielfolsom 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 {{talkheader}} provides is a list of archive subpages. It was serving that purpose on Template talk:Fact. So, if you remove {{talkheader}}, 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 _><>°^° 00:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I shall endeavor to be patient. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC Village Pump apostrophe template

Resolved

 – Looked into as requested.

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Modifying the apostrophe template, Template:'. 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{!}} and {{pipe}} is/was not the same thing

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

I left a message for you at Template talk:Pipe.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded over there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk

Resolved

 – Discussion relocated.

Here, email, WT:MOS, you name it ... about WT:MOS#Wikiproject Opt-outs (and date-linking). 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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#Groan. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

World Pool Champions

Resolved

 – Discussion is at Talk:List of World Eight-ball 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied too Sandman30s (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting

Resolved

 – Responded at centralized discussion point, and this is really a non-issue anyway.

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: How come this is here instead of WT:MOSNUM? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Resolved

 – Personal chat; no editing issues to resolve.

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, [6]. 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Excellent User Award
		To SMcCandlish. Just ask him if programmers are users too. Peace. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, thankya verra much! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your new policy

Resolved

 – Addressed at the talk page linked to below.

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Future-Class

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

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#CRYSTAL 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

Resolved

 – Problem explained and fixed.

Your changes are causing some pages to appear in C:SD for some reason. Edits like this. I'm trying to figure out how the code is making it appear in C: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 {{db-move}}; long since fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)

User talk:SMcClandish

Resolved

 – Impossible to fulfill request.

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image placeholder requests

Resolved

 – Q&A

Is this 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Updated for clarity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Brought the cat up again

Resolved

 – Done.

In case you're interested, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 21#Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to check that out tonight. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging biographical infoboxes

Resolved

 – Done.

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your input

Resolved

 – Done.

... at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)#Decades. 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tough time

Resolved

 – Discussion now moved to Talk:Rudolf Wanderone/Redraft.

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 unarchved the review page, since all of this is still active. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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

Resolved

 – Responded there.

I saw you recently posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (long lists). I've just begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Resolved

 – No thanks; have other fish to fry.

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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thought you'd enjoy this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNAtK-Qhlqg --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That was great. I wish he'd let her run out! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hag2

hi, smc. Do you have a Wikilink for the construction of the {{RP|:xx}} pagination-citation? I would like to read that page. Whenever I tried to find something around here, it seems as if I get lost in lots of extraneous crosslinking. Thanks. Hag2 (talk)

Hey. I noticed your message and since SM doesn't seem to be around and the template was created by SM in light of my whinging; here's a few links you might be looking for: The template page itself has detailed instructions on use; it has been much used at Glossary of cue sports terms so see there for it in action, and it was created after this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuh. I'll take a look. Smc used the pagination on the Rudolf Wanderone article too. (Which, incidentally, Smc has posted at the review page. Hag2 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the template's own page is its best documentation. I think the peer review is essentially over, thanks to your (Hag2)'s work, though I want to pore over it again in light of others' comments there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Snooker players nicknames

Resolved

 – Moved to other user's talk page.

Could I suggest that you check your facts before dismissing edits as vandalism. As you're clearly not that up to speed on this subject area may I suggest you read Clive Everton's History of Snooker. It's a couple of years old now but will give you the details on how those names arose. Clearly I'm not the only one aware of them, as you pointed out on the pages history, several other people have added exactly the same. I'll give you a day to brush up your knowledge and revert after that. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.32.32 (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but they look like vandalism edits. I'm reverting nothing. Our verifiability policy requires that information in articles be cited to reliable sources. Per the policy on biographies of living people, any information which may be construed as potentially controversial (such as insulting-sounding nicknames) must be deleted on sight if it has no reference citations. So, you are not in a position to suggest that anyone check their facts when you provide no evidence that what you are positing is actually factual. I will change the vandalism tags to different warnings, but I don't believe for a minute that 81.153.32.32, 81.153.39.14, 86.145.194.156, 217.44.5.8 are different users, as "you all" are making precisely the same edits, character for character, over and over again. My guess is you are one person using several different computers at a university and perhaps one at home. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Project banners in archives

Hi,

Out of interest, what's the reason for including {{WikiProject Cue sports}} in talk page archives? (and you may be interested in {{talkarchivenav}} instead of the {{talkarchive}} / {{atn}} combination when doing future archival.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The project uses this banner to identify all pages under the scope of the project. It is of considerable metadata interest (to me, perhaps to other project members) which articles within our scope generate enough discussion to even have archives. For similar reasons we also tag /Comments pages (which of our articles have significant enough editorial interest to generate such pages?) and other subpages. Also, should something radical change, like a new way of archiving talk pages, or whatever, this will make them easier to find. Thanks for the pointer to {{talkarchivenav}}; that does look good! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia CD question

I think this note might have been intended for BozMo not BOZ? Anyway the answer is to post on the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia CD Selection. PS Hello there BOZ, never come across you here before, welcome (belatedly). --BozMo talk 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was intended for BOZ, who left a post above about D&D articles and the CDs/DVDs. Maybe you would have been a better person to ask, ultimately, but BOZ was convenient. :-) And I think that Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations was what I was looking for. Or are we talking past each other? I may be misinterpreting what you mean by "this" in "I think this note..." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Please don't rollback ([7]) non-vandalism edits like this one: [8]. It's not what the rollback tool is for.

Was the edit somewhat promotional in nature? Yep. Do I agree with removing it? Yep. Was it so obviously done in bad faith that it could be rolled back without comment? Nope. The article section in question includes – through your own edits ([9]) – the names of a number of manufacturers and information about some of their products; the anon added slightly more detail in the same vein, and doesn't deserve to get slapped for it.

If you wish to undo a non-vandalism edit in the future, please use either the undo tool or manually revert and leave a descriptive edit summary. Thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was just a mistake on my part. I meant to hit "Undo" but hit "Rollback" by mistake. With all the scripts and widgets I have installed, some of the rollback options are "fire and forget", offering no opportunity to add any kind of comment. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'm still using the vanilla interface. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved your essay

Incidentally, I moved your essay on the application of the Manual of Style to your userspace (from SMcCandlish/WP:MOS-Irony to User:SMcCandlish/WP:MOS-Irony); you must have inadvertently dropped the User: prefix when you created it. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I must be smokin' too much crack. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD Discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fresh Mex restaurants: yeah I was agreeing with you, agreeing with me. Haha. Most of that categorization stuff is beyond me, so I'll let you handle whatever needs improvement. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Keen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Serial vandal template/ubox question

Hi, I have been experimenting a bit in my sandbox with an idea inspired by some recent RC patrolling and based on some of your contribs to the userboxes I thought you might be able to help. As an example, this user User_talk:216.162.91.110 has been repeatedly blocked/warned. Normally I would just paste {{repeatvandal}} at the top before blocking, however, it is really tedious to scroll through months/years of section breaks and warnings, especially in cases like this IP where they have basically never contributed anything positive. I was hoping to replace the whole litany of warnings with a template using some dynamic parameters, and while doing a little browsing I noticed you had authored the userbox VN that lets you specify the number of vandalisms. In my sandbox User:Kaisershatner/sandbox I was playing with this, but I thought you might be able to point me in the right direction coding-wise. What I would like ideally is to have a box modeled after {{blocked}} that says:

"This IP has been blocked X times for vandalism and has been warned over Y times. Previous warnings and blocks have been archived HERE." ({{subst:serialvandal|X|Y|[[archivepage]]}} )

This way, I can clip the 200kb of warnings off without removing the useful information that a particular IP has a long history of abuse. Think you can set me straight or point me at the "learn to code templates/userboxes page"? Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything more general than WP:ICONS?

I don't know, I'm bad with table and image stuff. If you know anyone who likes to keep up with the pages in the Image cat, I would love for someone to add the category to stuff to keep up with at WP:Update. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten-ball edits

Hi, I see you edited a couple of my edits about the ten-ball championship. No worries, I was just trying to clean up what I thought were non-encyclopedic edits by User:Florentino floro. He has since gone back and re-edited the Ten-ball, Wu Chia-ching, Darren Appleton, and Niels Feijen articles. I am not interested in getting in an edit war with him over this (see [10] if you're bored), as billiards is not really my area of expertise, but I thought you might be willing to take another look at those articles to see if they need to get cleaned up. Thanks, axschme (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. The information is definitely valid (when tagged with current sport) for the article on the sport, but I have to agree with you that it constitutes blatant trivia in some of the other contexts. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've cleaned up the player articles, but Ten-ball still needs work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

With all due respect, I fully respect your comment, and on the talk page - [11] - I desire that, if you have time, please read my evidence. Basically, I and User:Cma or Mr. Dominique Gerald Cimafranca, both from the Philippines and both alumni and student, respectively, of Ateneo de Manila University-Ateneo Law School (1974 and 1982) and Ateneo de Davao (student, present), respectively, had had personal angers, hatred, and differences which spilled here in Wikipedia with Max. There were long battles between us 3 for blocking:

• User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling
• The very long Rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro and then, Max challenged my userpage, and I created this to refute Max:
• User:Florentino floro/Learned Treatise:Legal-Academic Values of Compleat User Page
• Max's contributions are daily and nothing more than stalking of my edits[12]. I and you, with all due respect, never ever found any editor of millions here, that, had had only one agenda: stalking another editor, co-Filipino, co-Atenean.
• User:Cma barely handful of edits had nothing more but edits of my daily edits[13]

In law, there is no other best evidence of stalking than this. Stalking is a crime and punished under all foreign laws and by Wikipedia by blocking[14]

IN FINE, I respect your opinion on this, and I desire that you edit and amend, Ten-ball: the Philiipines, my country will never forget this event, and please visit our country. Cheers.

User:Florentino floro) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Florentino floro (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be good for you to either reconcile with this user, or not deal with him at all (which could mean avoiding editing certain articles). As for ten-ball, I actually have a total overhaul of that article planned, with both sets of rules (WPA and traditional BCA) fully sourced. It is an important article, as ten-ball may well be the future of professional pool. I assure you that it will be handled as best as I can handle articles here, and the event in question will either remain a major part of that article or become its own article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there SMcCandlish! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

I edited a barnstar and cut follow ups, an image and wikilinks here from last month. In advance, no problem if for some reason you need all that and revert. Things calmed down here. Thanks for being a safe haven. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

List naming conventions

Hi, SMcCandlish. I don't know if you remember, but just over 2 weeks ago you commented at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists regarding the complete mess and inconsistencies over the naming of lists. A couple of other people commented along the lines of "Yeah, it is a mess", though despite me leaving notes at WP:Lists, WP:FLC etc it didn't get the attention I was hoping for. I know that we cannot say a consensus has been reached, but the proposal was made, noone opposed it; do you think it's time to be bold and actually create WP:Naming conventions (lists) (shortcut: WP:NNL) using the points we discussed? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it WP:NCLIST; "NN" means "non-notable" in WP parlance. I'd proceed with caution here; we need to work in material from multiple sources, including WP:NCLL and WP:SAL, actually observe what's happening in practice and try to normalize it (i.e. make it more consistent) based on what the most common naming pattern(s) is/are (see WP:POLICY – guidelines are supposed to describe actual WP best practices, not try to make them up or prescribe someones' pet preference), account for specialized lists like glossaries (see WP:MOSGLOSS for an in-progress draft relating to them), and so forth. I have no objections to creating the page; it should have {{Draft proposal}} on it, though (if not {{Brainstorming}}). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, NNL must have been a typo, I'm sure I meant NCL, but NCLIST is just as good. I'll have a go at starting something this weekend, all being well, taking into what was discussed a couple of weeks ago, and what you pointed out here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Swiss snooker players

Resolved

 – Moot; speedily deleted before I could examine the situation. I suspect an article was tenuously AfDed and should be restored, with an addl. source or 2 or 5.

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Swiss snooker players, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Swiss snooker players has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Swiss snooker players, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nominations

Resolved

 – Clarified at WP:CFD.

You may already be aware (since you just posted a nom), but there have been other such nominations, some of which are still pending. (I won't call this canvassing since you already posted at CfD : ) - jc37 12:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean others nominations for Category:Fictional nuclear explosions in film and television? It had no CfD tag on it, or its talk page, so I didn't think to look. Or am I misunderstanding you? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar as in fiction-related. - jc37 13:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Surname disambiguation templates

Resolved

 – No issues.

You created this category and tagged the associated templates as disambiguation templates. However, they are really not disambiguation templates as they don't disambiguate between multiple articles. Instead, they eliminate the ambiguity between the proper name and the surname within an article.

I normally wouldn't worry about wording issues like that except there are bots who automatically create links between target (disambiguation) and target when the target has a disambiguation template. In this case, this causes an error as the target is not a dab page.

I'm going to move the categories to another name (Category:Surname clarification templates perhaps?) to prevent that from happening in the future unless there is something I'm missing.

Let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Glossolalia

Resolved

 – Input given.

Hello! I've been arguing for the inclusion of glossaries for years!

The latest conversation is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Glossaries. I think they're beginning to agree with the ideas I'm putting forward, so you may just want to watch for now, but I've summarized most of the recent/relevant links in that thread so it might be useful to read through.

Perhaps add these pages to your watchlist: Portal:Contents/List of glossaries and Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries(outofdate). Also, I'll try to give some feedback at wt:mosgloss soonish. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should weigh in on this. Please also drop User talk:Fuhghettaboutit a note about this, if you have a moment (out of time for WPing tonight this morning myself). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Grrr, this again. Thanks for telling Quiddity to drop me a note, and to you too Quiddity for doing so. I have a great time drain right now but will respond there if it's not resolved on the good side soon, i.e., keeping glossaries. I just want to grab them like dogs who have had accidents and rub their faces in researched, historical, footnoted, cross-linked, sections of WP:CUEGLOSS while saying bad!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've done a bit of updating at Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries (and constructed a {{Glossaries}} navbox). Feel free to continue the overhaul, and perhaps let's continue any relevant discussion at that project's talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Both of y'alls should add yourselves to the list of project participants, methinks. Also, I have posted a big missive and several smaller replies at WT:NOT#Glossaries. That and I've moved that it be marked with {{Resolved}} as off-topic for the venue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Football dabs

Resolved

 – Issue has moved to other venues.

SMcCandlish. I am furious with User:Tavix. The user has occasionally moved football articles with names such as Eagle Day (football player) to Eagle Day (Canadian football) and I have reverted the move and tried to explain how that is not a helpful dab and violates the conventions and spirit of WP:NCP. The dab should describe the person and not the sport unless it makes the dab unwieldy, such as (baseball player and coach) in which common sense says that (baseball) is a reasonable exception. This kind of dab not only fails the convention of describing the person and of not making the dab any less unwieldy but it also makes for less correct dabs. Eagle Day was an American, and played both American and Canadian football. In that there are no other Eagle Days that are best known as football players, the (football player) dab is perfect.

I have tried my best to convey this in the past at User talk:Tavix but the user refuses to acknowledge my concerns. The user's response has been that the exceptions are permitted for unwieldy dabs (but clearly this does not improve it) and that the dab football in itself must be dabbed, thus the user would require the code of football attached to every football dab. It is quite unnecessary, obviously, when there is no other article that shares a name with another code of football and, in fact, it is extremely unhelpful and ambiguity about the code of football is useful when so many articles can be shared by people and things that are shared amongst the codes of football.

I was willing to correct the dabs and respond to the user about the undesirability of the moves when it was only a handful every week or so in hopes that Tavix would learn over time the wisdom of the WP:NCP but today the user has gone on a mission of, at this time and continuing of some 200 moves. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=250&type=move&user=Tavix I am too furious to respond and would like a third party familiar with the DAB conventions such as yourself to step in here. Incidentally, I see now that the user has also now moved Eagle Day to Herman "Eagle" Day. While I appreciate that it avoids the other less desirable dabs, it is a name he has never been known by. It is also only an example, there are far more moves that have been done by dabs that are of the manner I described above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have raised the issue in general now at WT:NCP#Football dabs revisited as well. I would still like someone like yourself to communicate with Tavix as my communications have gone nowhere and I am not in a civil mood at the moment. Tavix's actions seem very disruptive to me but I am too involved to judge fairly. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, at his talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If he does it again, add a customized uw-mos3 (see my note on his page for an example of a custom uw-mos2), and take the matter to WP:ANI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Your calm and rational explanation was exactly what I hoped for and knew I could not do. I hope that it finally sinks in. If not, one cannot but assume intended disruption. Thanks also for the recommended warning. Regards, DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ack. He has started again and requested a ban to stop him. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Took it to WP:ANI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to let you know that I responded to your ANI report. All the reasons for my actions is stated in there. Tavix (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I replied there as well. I don't find the rationales at all compelling, frankly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention?

Good day SMcCandlish. This issue has continued though, thankfully, at a more moderate pace. Nonetheless, I am tired of the ridiculous moves and rationales behind them. I am generally unflappable and easy-going but this fellow has a manner that can really antagonise me somehow. His rallying cry is "Consistency", which in itself is a good thing but when it is to worse dabs it makes things consistently bad. It's become apparent to me that several in the NFL project favour the (American football) dab. I think it's a bad choice, obviously, but only get involved when it affects players who play more than one code of football. I think it's time to deal with the issue more generally.

I would very much have preferred to just use the general naming convention guidelines but it's clear that they are inadequate to deal with this situation. I wonder if it's wise at this point to begin a proposal for Naming conventions (football players) or Naming conventions (gridiron players) or Naming conventions (athletes). I respect your wisdom, experience, and neutrality in this area so am seeking your opinion on the way forward. I generally prefer broad and general guidelines to reduce the number of rules and guidelines but it may (or may not) be easier to narrow the scope. FYI, I wrote some guidelines for Canadian football player articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football/Player pages format#Naming conventions (I invite your improvements) which I suppose I would use as a starting point but would need slight modifications to include American football, great modifications to include all football codes, and wouldn't even bother to use if an Athletes-wide convention is sought. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. Consistently unhelpful is worse that helpful but inconsistent, even when we accept consistency (as I do) as a useful goal generally. He appears to be using this particular naming nitpick to defend his overall pattern of disruptive moves, which are across many topics. I can only find one single positive response on his talk page and its history to him moving an article, and a significant proportion of posts on his talk page are complaints about his moves. As for this particular issue, I'm getting kind of tired of it - I've sought consensus at WT:NCP, but it has yet to fully materialize, because too many participants in a handful of sports projects that think they are "special" somehow have derailed it. Not sure where to go from here. I think a WP-wide RFC on the matter at NCP might be needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited your WProject naming convention a bit. I think that it is solid enough to use as the basis for a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), and will start drafting that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've created that page now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate and approve your improvements to the WPCFL guideline. I will have a look at the proposed convention and am glad that it's progressing so quickly. Hope it continues to go well and reach a conclusion. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it over and am strongly in favour of it. You've clearly done a lot of work in short time. Thanks again for getting this going. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

Of course a few hours later he begins another mass move of nearly 200 articles at this moment in the last 90 minutes. I have reported to WP:ANI. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Will support. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Replace this image female.svg

Resolved

 – Just a chat.

Hi. I'm sure you will remember this one (and its companion). Despite everything it's still there and still displayed on a large number of articles. I was thinking of trying to tackle the inertia by putting the file up for deletion, but I see it's protected. I wonder if you have any ideas? Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Using AWB to remove it from most/all articles might be helpful. The less it is used, the more likely it will be to be deleted. Same goes for the rest of those ugly placeholders. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way. Though I support the idea of making image uploads/additions easier and found nothing wrong with these images, I do find that there was consensus that these particular images were undesirable. Since the replacement process stalled, I think it is appropriate to mass-remove the images through AWB. Many instances were added by AWB initially as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but there's a more general consensus now, against the whole "fromowner" placeholder image idea generally, as an eyesore. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's agreement, no? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay; I must've misread you. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Images at CP

Resolved

 – Moot.

Hi. I see that you listed File:Stewart tranchell.jpg at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 December 15 and just wanted to let you know that images were removed from CP about six months or so ago. Suspected violations of copyright of images that are claimed under free license are handled at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If you'd like me to relocate your concern to PUI on your behalf, please just let me know. I do that on the odd occasion that images are mislisted by new contributors (or DumbBot), but it feels a bit presumptive to do so automatically with somebody as experienced as you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it; thanks. I just forgot about PUI, and the difference. I don't do much copyvio patrolling. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand. The wiki is labyrinthine. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually, I looked more closely, and Kintak (talk · contribs) has already stated (in response to inquiries about this image and another one credited to Norman Wingrove) that he is in fact Norman Wingrove, so I'll AGF and move on. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

Resolved

 – Done.

You may want to respond to how you were characterised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Just a note and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Naming standards. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out; I wasn't watching those pages. Filed a canvassing report at ANI. Dunno what it is about some of these highly-topical sports types (not a general criticism; I am one, about cue sports) that makes them so disruptive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Resolved

 – Noted!

When you start a thread on someone at AN/I, please remember to notify - it is often considered quite rude not to do so. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 21:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Woops, my bad. Was on the phone, then had to run to the grocery store before they closed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so rude?

Mr. McCandlish, I really think you need to cheer up. Everytime I run between you, you're always complaining about one thing or another, and I really think you could use some holiday cheer. Okay? So, have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. =) Tavix (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you too (really). And I am having a great Christmas. Please don't confuse being a stickler for process and the rule of "law" (guidelines and policies) for being angry or unhappy. Most cops love their jobs. Comparatively, on some level, I love protecting Wikipedia from folly and from the erosion of its consistency and reader-friendliness. I don't think you're stupid, or intending to harm WP, or a prankster, I think you're just hardheaded, unwilling (surely not unable) to follow the logic of the guidelines in question (simplicity and consistency being the most salient keywords in this case), and self-righteous, to the point of recalcitrance and standoffishness, with regard to your own ideas of how things should work here instead of the evolutionary process of consensus building. Oh well. That doesn't make you a bad person, just a sometimes problematic editor. The first criticism isn't even a strong one, as I am hardheaded myself. The third wouldn't be all that problematic - you're hardly alone - if the second were not at play. Being honest is not being rude. Neither is attracting further critical attention to actions the vast majority of other commentators on which have also criticized, out of constructivism not malice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tb notice

Resolved

 – Replied back at Talk:Roux.

Hello, SMcCandlish. You have new messages at roux's talk page.

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template.

Cape Verdean American sportspeople

Hi,

An on-going discussion is taking place regarding sorting people with triple intersections of nationality, ethnicity and occupation. You took part in a discussion regarding German American sportspeople and I thought you might be interested in the current discussion, which can be found here.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

18 new pool-pictures availible on commons from the mosconi cup 2008

hi, i know you are a bit interested in billiards, ans so i just wanted to told you, that someone, who was in malta an made picures from the Mosconi Cup allowed me to upload them. Maybe you could put them into the articles and make good subtitles here in the english wiki - i'll do so in the German wiki (my mother tongue as you might have guessed after these lines)... All 18 pics can be found here: commons:Category:Mosconi Cup 2008 Greets --De-tmv23 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cuegloss template

Nifty! And, as advertised, less pain and suffering. Thanks! pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 13:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Merriam–Webster's Words of the Year

Hello, SMcCandlish. I am Dem393, the main editor of List of Merriam–Webster's Words of the Year, an article you recently delisted as a Featured List. First of all, I shall say that I appreciate the criticism that you provided on the discussion page. Rest assured that I'm not holding any grudges against you for what you call my "sacred ox" or something... I am now at that age in which it takes me a semester of a high school English 3 class to realize that my writing sucks.

I want you to know that I do intend to renominate this list for Featured List. I just realized that the 2008 list of Words of the Year was published recently, so I shall update the article as soon as possible. Now let me take the time to address some of your concerns.

• In my opinion, a list of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year can stand alone as an article. I say this because the list has been discussed in several news outlets, and I think that the abundance of discussion about this list makes it fairly notable. Why would a topic that has been discussed so much, has appeared on several blogs, and has been mentioned in several news outlets not be notable?
• As for my use of non-Merriam-Webster definitions of the words, I would like to direct you to the peer review and the FLC. My peer reviewer, Ruhrfisch, said that I should "depend less on the primary sources from Merriam-Webster." This is why I relied on Dictionary.com, a third-party source, to provide my definitions. Is it not a Wikipedia policy to avoid using primary sources in your articles? Wouldn't the use of Merriam-Webster's definitions constitute a bias? I defend my use of tertiary sources in this list because I need to show that the definitions are not the creation of only Merriam-Webster, an organization who gains publicity with every publication of the Words of the Year.

I would be happy to discuss any other issues you may have with the article. As for the proposed merge, I don't think that that's necessary.--Dem393 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)