Contents
- 1 Invitation to a research survey
- 2 Category:Knights Templar in modern culture
- 3 Nomination for deletion of Template:South Asian history
- 4 Rfd notice
- 5 Ayin
- 6 Latinx
- 7 Rifaʿi (disambiguation)
- 8 Warning for edit warring at Languages of Europe
- 9 Proposed deletion of JUB
- 10 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 11 Earth
- 12 Deus lo vult
Invitation to a research survey
Hello Dbachmann, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
Category:Knights Templar in modern culture
Hi, I have proposed renaming Category:Knights Templar in modern culture, which you created. Please see CFD Oct 13. – Fayenatic London 18:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:South Asian history
Template:South Asian history has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Rfd notice
Hi, I've sent to RfD a bunch of redirects with which you have been involved. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 4#Western Zone. – Uanfala 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Ayin
Hi-- Please note WP:ISLAM: "The characters representing the ayin (ع) and the hamza (ء) are not omitted (except when at the start of a word) in the basic form, represented both by the straight apostrophe (')." [emphasis mine]. Eperoton (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a good idea. I do not find the thing you cite on the page you link, and I also don't see why conventions on the transliteration of Arabic should be under "WP:ISLAM". --dab (𒁳) 15:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, wrong link. I meant MOS:ISLAM. There's more on this in WP:MOSAR, but it's only a proposal. There's room for discussion here, which can be taken up on the MOS talk page. Personally, I support the use of "basic transcription" in article titles, but not in the article body as a requirement, so I would like to see that phrasing changed. However, given the current state of the MOS, we shouldn't make mass changes contrary to it. Eperoton (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
- right. I realize ayin is often rendered as ' due to laziness (' is on the keyboard) but in my opinion this should be avoided at any cost, because it leads to the confusion of two completely unrelated letters. It should either be rendered with the backquote (to remain within ISO1) or ideally with the specialized ʿ character, even if the transliteration is "basic", i.e. without diacritics (ʿ does not count as a "diacritic" but as the transliteration of a full letter). I have been pursuing this approach for at least a decade now; I realize there will never be a unified way for Arabic transliteration in article titles, and that's fine, but at least we should try to use "basic transliterations" that do not lend themselves to the confusion of hamza and ayin. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- So, why not try to gain consensus for this approach at MOS talk? Eperoton (talk)
- It would never have occurred to me to bring this up at MOS:ISLAM, because the question has nothing to do with Islam. The relevant guideline page is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I believe the reason this is in WP:MOSISLAM is because MOSAR is still just a proposal. I don't know why it hasn't been promoted to MOS, as it seems to be reasonably well developed, aside from the potentially contentious usage issues that we'll now have a chance to discuss. Once we iron those out, as a veteran editor, you may have helpful experience on how to get it over the hump. I'm not very active at the moment, but I'll do my best to help. Eperoton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am taking this opportunity to improve Ayin#Transliteration, it turns out this was incomplete and badly referenced, and of course we will need to be aware of the relevant facts before we can come up with a well-reasoned guideline. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I believe the reason this is in WP:MOSISLAM is because MOSAR is still just a proposal. I don't know why it hasn't been promoted to MOS, as it seems to be reasonably well developed, aside from the potentially contentious usage issues that we'll now have a chance to discuss. Once we iron those out, as a veteran editor, you may have helpful experience on how to get it over the hump. I'm not very active at the moment, but I'll do my best to help. Eperoton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- It would never have occurred to me to bring this up at MOS:ISLAM, because the question has nothing to do with Islam. The relevant guideline page is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- So, why not try to gain consensus for this approach at MOS talk? Eperoton (talk)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ok, I did my research[1]; not quite done, but at this point I think I can say pretty much everyone uses ʿ as recommended by Unicode. The only notable exception appears to be the ALA-LC standard, which seems to be due to its being published in 1991, i.e. just before the publication of the Unicode standard, and it hasn't been made "Unicode compliant" since. Based on this, I would strongly recommend for the purposes of our guideline: either do not render ayin at all (in loose transliteration of well-known names, such as Iraq) or else use ʿ (as in lesser known terms such as Muʿtazila). --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nice work! You've convinced me to use this symbol from now on instead of the inverted comma I've been using in running text. It looks like we don't have strong disagreements in the discussion at MOSAR (though, as I just wrote there, there's another editor whose input I'd like to get), but in practical terms we were discussing several separate though related issues, and it will take a bit of thought to flesh them out into concrete proposals. Do I understand correctly that you're proposing altering the basic transcription scheme, rather than expressing a less categorical preference for basic transcription over strict transliteration, which I've been arguing for? Eperoton (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure how I feel about "basic transcription". I guess I judge its usefulness on a case-by-case basis, and I will always check how relevant English-language sources spell the term in question. It's somewhere between "anglicized" and "close" transcription, I suppose. But in what contexts is it useful to have three spellings, viz. Iraq vs. ʿIraq vs. ʿIrāq? I have to think more about this. My entire point so far is, if you're going to represent ayin at all, let's recommend you render it with the recommended Unicode glyph ʿ. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nice work! You've convinced me to use this symbol from now on instead of the inverted comma I've been using in running text. It looks like we don't have strong disagreements in the discussion at MOSAR (though, as I just wrote there, there's another editor whose input I'd like to get), but in practical terms we were discussing several separate though related issues, and it will take a bit of thought to flesh them out into concrete proposals. Do I understand correctly that you're proposing altering the basic transcription scheme, rather than expressing a less categorical preference for basic transcription over strict transliteration, which I've been arguing for? Eperoton (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with the current guideline in preference for common transcription when it's available, as it is for Iraq. Otherwise, it looks like we may be gravitating toward consensus on some significant changes. Hopefully, we can now channel the discussion into actionable proposals. Eperoton (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Latinx
(Having noticed your merge note)
Have I characterized this article totally wrongly? This smells of advocacy. A class project wants to jam a neologism into Wikipedia. Since one run-in with the MOStafarians regarding 'mebibyte' I know that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Who to approach for asking for general comments and second-thoughts on this misdirected effort? Shenme (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- well, it's supposed to work via consensus between uninvolved bona fide editors. But in propaganda-heavy topics, it's difficult to get enough such editors to even care.
- As I see, it there are two topics here, (1) Latinos (i.e. the people themselves and their identity politics etc.), and (b) the term "Latinx" itself as an exercise in gender-neutral language. Both topics are covered elsewhere (1) see Latino, (2) see gender neutral language to see the topics covered in context. What remains is the term "Latinx", as a dictionary entry, to be covered at wikt:Latinx.
- Sometimes, it is arguable to write entire encyclopedic articles about words. These will be extremely difficult and notable words, such as God (word) or similar. Mere neologisms usually will not qualify, and if they do, it is very important to avoid any WP:CFORK and stick to discussing the term itself and not its referent. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Rifaʿi (disambiguation)
Hello. I see you've moved the page Rifaʿi (disambiguation). This is now WP:MALPLACED, as there's no Rifaʿi article. The titles of the listed pages are inconsistent in their representation of ayin, but none of them contain the ʿ character, and I can't find it in other dab titles either. I'm not sure how best to sort this out and don't want to risk making things worse, so please can I ask you to take another look at it? Thanks, Certes (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- this is a purely typographic problem. Rifaʿi is to be considered equivalent to Rifa`i (options for the transliteration of ayin). --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Warning for edit warring at Languages of Europe
{{uw-ew}} Jeppiz (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:DNTTR. I asked you to respect WP:BRD and posted my rationale. If this is your reaction then I assume I am not in a bona fide discussion on article content. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've made exactly one edit to the article concerning the map. You undid it, just as you had done with another user, and I have not redone it, instead I have detailed my rationale at the talk page of the article. Seems pretty WP:BRD to me, actually. Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- so far, sure. Just, why on Earth did you feel compelled to "uw-ew" me, or how did you expect this would be conductive to resolving whatever content dispute we may be involved in? I try to find constructive solutions with people willing to point out content issues, but I am not in the habit of trying to debate with users who see every superficial difference of opinion as an "edit war" they have to win. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've made exactly one edit to the article concerning the map. You undid it, just as you had done with another user, and I have not redone it, instead I have detailed my rationale at the talk page of the article. Seems pretty WP:BRD to me, actually. Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of JUB
The article JUB has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unintelligible rubbish
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I never clicked on the history tab, just assumed it was a new page of crap, and prodded. My bad. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Earth
I'm sorry, I don't get how this following addition of images would be spam...
Iggy (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, if you are of the opinion that for the Earth article specifically this is a worthwhile addition, you are very welcome to revert my edit. I was mass-reverting the edits of an editor who has added this and similar "galleries" to a large number of articles without seeking consensus. (Hence "spam", I am not saying this is commercial "spam", I am just using the term as "unasked-for mass-addition of stuff".)
- I have to say that an "image" showing the "Actual Universe" with a link to Universe is of very questionable relevance to the Earth article. You could, with the same justification, add the image to the New York page in a similar sequence showing the "Location of New York". I do think this "gallery" page has no place in the "Earth" article, but you are welcome to come to a different conclusion. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please understand that my additions of various templates (including {{Human timeline}}, {{Life timeline}}, {{Nature timeline}}, Earth location-images above and several others) were made in good faith as possible improvements to articles - they were not intended to be spam in any way, but were intended as consistent with WP:BOLD instead - however - it's entirely ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is WP:CONSENSUS from other editors - restoring worthy edits is welcome as well of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- I understand they were made in good faith. They were also very ill advised, and created needless cleanup work. If you do propose to add the same content to more than two pages, please use a template that can be transcluded in the future, as it is a nightmare to maintain duplicated content spread across several pages. Such duplicated content should never contain images, as each article has to maintain its own individual balance of which images are worthy of inclusion. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks - yes - entirely agree - no problem whatsoever - originally, the "different series of images were an experiment/test" - to see how they might look - thought about making them into templates, but didn't know if that were even possible - not at all sure yet how to do this (any help appreciated) - but may ask at WP:VPT if there's ever an acceptable need in the future - in any case - lesson learned - Thanks again. Drbogdan (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- See {{Homo}} for an example, this is actual encyclopedic information (about human species) which is relevant to more than one article, so I decided it would make sense to transclude it, so it can be updated and maintained centrally. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you - it's appreciated. Drbogdan (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I misspoke/misremembered, it was not my idea, apparently it's due to User:Octopus-Hands, created back in 2007. --dab (𒁳) 17:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you - it's appreciated. Drbogdan (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- See {{Homo}} for an example, this is actual encyclopedic information (about human species) which is relevant to more than one article, so I decided it would make sense to transclude it, so it can be updated and maintained centrally. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks - yes - entirely agree - no problem whatsoever - originally, the "different series of images were an experiment/test" - to see how they might look - thought about making them into templates, but didn't know if that were even possible - not at all sure yet how to do this (any help appreciated) - but may ask at WP:VPT if there's ever an acceptable need in the future - in any case - lesson learned - Thanks again. Drbogdan (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I understand they were made in good faith. They were also very ill advised, and created needless cleanup work. If you do propose to add the same content to more than two pages, please use a template that can be transcluded in the future, as it is a nightmare to maintain duplicated content spread across several pages. Such duplicated content should never contain images, as each article has to maintain its own individual balance of which images are worthy of inclusion. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please understand that my additions of various templates (including {{Human timeline}}, {{Life timeline}}, {{Nature timeline}}, Earth location-images above and several others) were made in good faith as possible improvements to articles - they were not intended to be spam in any way, but were intended as consistent with WP:BOLD instead - however - it's entirely ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is WP:CONSENSUS from other editors - restoring worthy edits is welcome as well of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Deus lo vult
Hi, Dab, long time! Hope you're doing well. I see you moved Deus vult to Deus lo vult — well — OK. Anybody looking for the phrase "Deus vult" (which I think is the phrase more likely to be looked for today ) on Wikipedia will find it, through the redirect, so, fine. But what I have trouble agreeing with is your removal of the section "21st century usage", as "recentism". I do think people looking up the phrase are quite likely to be looking for an explanation of the alt-right meme. It's pretty established. See all the sources the section has. So, I've restored it. Restored the meme only, I mean; I totally agree that it's absurdly trivial to describe a computer game under "21st century usage". Please take a look, and if you don't agree, just revert. And if you don't like the header "History", which I kind of thought I needed to put back because of the header "21st century usage", please change it. I'm not very happy with it myself. You've added a lot of interesting and learned information, so maybe there could be more sub-sections? Bishonen | talk 19:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC).
- Happy to see you. Yes, this is exactly my concern. There should be a difference between Wikipedia and knowyourmeme.com
- The Deus lo vult page should be about the scholarly, historiographical topic. I am tired of "memes" and political bickering riding on the WP:NOTE-coattails of actually notable topics.
- If the "meme" is really considered noteworthy, on its own terms, for the purposes of Wikipedia, then let Deus lo vult be about the medieval topic, and let Deus vult (2016 Internet meme) be the page about the meme, to be judged for inclusion in the project on its own merit, and not on that of the First Crusade.
- I had a similar experience at Kek (mythology), where I was trying to write an Egyptological article, but people thought that clearly, the 2016 presidental election, is so notable it, ahem, trumps all of history. Who cares about your dusty egyptology, we have google results showing "Kek" is a terribly important internet meme. I tried to explain that notability is relative to the page topic, but we ended up with "see also Pepe the Frog".
- I hope you see where I am coming from. It's not about what people "are likely to look up". Of course 2 million people will look for the 4chan meme for every one person looking for an edition of the Historia by Robert the Monk. That is, for the next couple of months, when the meme will be forgotten, and the notability chasers will have moved on to disfigure other articles, leaving behind a page about a 900-year old battle cry disfigured with some short-lived headlines form October 2016 nobody will care about in October 2018. This is not how we used to operate. Back in the day it was the "Pokemon Test". Sure, write articles about your Pokemon characters and defend their notability there, but don't spam unrelated pages that just happen to share their names.
- --dab (𒁳) 20:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-
- Actually, I am not putting this well enough. I would actually be interested in the recent history of Deus vult. I came across references from the 17th to 19th centuries suggesting it became associated with the theology of just war in modern contexts. The "meme" would just be an ironic extension of that. After all, the rise of ISIS closely paralleled the conquests of the Seljuqs, and the atrocities reported from ISIS closely parallel those reported by Urban according to Robert. The parallels are eerie, and I am sure they can be covered based on actual literature. The "meme" is probably too recent to be incorporated into this without becoming guilty of "original research", but I am sure we can cover 19th to 20th century theories of just war and "Muscular Christianity" etc. referencing the phrase. The "meme" would then just appear to be a kind of cynical or postmodern extension of such serious theories. Citing that the phrase was found as graffiti on a mosque in Glasgow will not be helpful to this unless it is put into the greater context by some respectable secondary source. --dab (𒁳) 21:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)