→RFC notice: new section |
→RM's removing dates: new section |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
More options have been added to the Rfc at [[Charles, Prince of Wales]]. You may want to add that article to your watchlist :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
More options have been added to the Rfc at [[Charles, Prince of Wales]]. You may want to add that article to your watchlist :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
== RM's removing dates == |
|||
You have initiated many many page renames to strip dates from the title. This is clearly controversial as seen by the contentious RMs that sprung up and are now ongoing. Please cease making page moves along these lines ''en masse''. You've done the bold moves and seen there is controversy, there is every reason to expect controversy to continue, the RM process should be used. As the [[WP:RM]] says {{green|'''If you have no reason to expect a dispute''' concerning a move, be bold and move the page.}} You have reason to expect a dispute. Also, when advertising previous RMs, you should include all of them not just the one's that succeeded. For example [[2017 Chicago torture incident]]. -- [[User:GreenC|<font color="#006A4E">'''Green'''</font>]][[User_talk:GreenC|<font color="#009933">'''C'''</font>]] 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 21 November 2017
Hello, Surtsicna, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Papal pipelinks. If not all of them remove, then at least consecutively.
If you were to remove pipe-links from 'say' the last 10 popes' (Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI & Francis) infoboxes, then I would probably not revert. It's that you're making these changes sporadically/inconsistently, that I'm opposing. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, GoodDay! I improve what I can when I can and where I can. We can never improve everything at once, and there is always room for more improvement. Feel free to remove unnecessary pipes where I fail to do so, but do not reintroduce incorrect usage of links where I corrected it. It's obviously and purely disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Treat these articles as a set, not individually. Otherwise, you create inconsistencies. But, if it'll stop you from continuing to make inconsistent changes (and avoid edit warring) like this, then I'll have to remove pipe-links from the surrounding papal articles, that you continue to change. Would appreciate it though, if you do these change in sets of every 10 (chronological) popes. GoodDay (talk)
- PS: Having gone through a 1-year ban, I learned to be more tolerant of other editors' differing approach to articles. However, because of such an experience, I must caution you that other editors may not be as willing to back down from you. Be careful that your approach doesn't get you into edit-warring problems. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Each article stands on its own. There is nothing wrong with improving articles individually. An article should be inconsistent with articles which are "wrong". I am afraid that you value consistency above everything else, including proper format, style and possibly even accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Stephen Thomas
Hello! I recommend to your attention a 2017 paper about Thomas of Bosnia's Ottoman policy and campaigns. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla
Hi. They have protected all pages on Nikola Tesla so I can't respond you there as an Ip. Ethnicity is not usually written in to leads, but they can. Your reasoning that Serbia gave nothing to Tesla wouldn't change the fact about his ethnicity, although you are right that ethnicity didn't play much of a role in his life. Unfortunately, you won't have many people trying to discuss with you since all the people who can discuss are satisfied with the current state of the article and others are banned from discussing. I tend to agree with you. Tesla's ethnicity is not much important, especially when he had no ties to Serbia, as he was born and lived in Croatia. However many sources are putting his Serbian ethnicity up front so it seems that it will stay in the lead. Ok. I know that you didn't start the discussion about his ethnicity, but let me point you to this discussion: [1]. I tried to gather all sources that are speaking about Tesla's ethnicity, but other editors banned that discussion. It is somewhat related to your discussion as someone could ask, how much is it important to put Tesla's ethnicity in the lead, when the sources are not that much in sync. I couldn't find a single source which would have any footnote on the claim that Tesla is by ethnicity a Serb/Croat/Yugoslav....In this situation where Tesla had no ties to Serbia, when there isn't a single primary source on this topic nor any secondary source has any stronger claim from another secondary source with opposite claim, is it important to have this in the lead? I don't think so, but as far as I'm concerned it can stay if some editors feel good about it. Wikipedia only relates the sum of secondary sources and if you look at the sources you'll find that there's no consensus among them so Tesla's ethnicity is not really the problem that Wikipedia should solve, but some research done by someone who would publish a secondary source. 141.138.34.235 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional sources that may help you in the discussion [2]. 141.136.223.161 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Tesla's birthplace is a topic that was discussed over and over again. In my opinion it is solved with these sources. One source references Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia. Most importantly, the other source is stating that Croatia,Slavonia and Military frontier belong to a single entity. Unfortunately, some people don't want to accept that fact, even if it came directly from Tesla. Some even went so far that they denied Tesla's own statement, that's why I invested some time to find a source which would directly say that Military Frontier is a part of Croatia at that time.
- Yeah, it's hard to see when someone is not discussing in good faith until you try to have a normal discussion with them. You are maybe not aware of the sources I gave you, but they are and they are disregarding them.
"Mentioning a "military frontier" is off-topic and will cause endless arguments." - not when we have a source which clearly defines what Military Frontier was. People have discussed for ages on this "can of worms" because they all had their own opinions while they didn't have any sources. Now when there are sources, some have still kept their opinion. Event Tesla's statement that he was born in Croatia isn't enough. If you push this further, some of them will even claim that Tesla had lied that he was born in Croatia (which is outrages to claim, you can claim that for every source, that it tells lies....) 141.136.223.161 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Duchess of Fife is a disambiguation. Jim1138 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've realized that. Thank you for noting! I am not sure that it should be, though. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I really am curious about the thought process behind that one. Admittedly, 2016 Kalamazoo shootings is also not a good title, but it does at least narrow the subject down to only the shootings that occurred in 2016. A better title by far would be Kalamazoo County spree shootings, which at least barring negative future events, would be unique and correctly describe the location. Over the past 50 years, there have been roughly one shooting every week in the city of Kalamazoo. Since your page move, that is now the apparent subject of the article. I doubt that was your intention. I've requested a technical move to return it to its original title for a proper move discussion. I noticed on my watchlist that this is not the only crime article you boldly moved (and were reverted on). Please remember that the WP pages you cited are only guidelines and can be overruled by local consensus. The Congessianal baseball shooting had been moved previously via a move discussion. It's never proper to move an article boldly that had been previously moved via discussion. That's editing against consensus and as I'm sure you are aware, that's never a good idea. John from Idegon (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, John from Idegon. The title 2017 Congressional baseball shooting was indeed the result of a consensus, and moving that without checking for earlier discussions was a mistake. There was no consensus to overrule the guidelines in the other cases, though. I had earlier requested a move at Talk:Manchester Arena bombing#Requested move 3 October 2017, which received a wide and unanimous support (leading me to believe that other such cases would not be contested). You can see my thought process at that talk page. Anyway, I agree that Kalamazoo County spree shootings would be a better choice. In my opinion, we should aim at precision by describing the nature of the incident rather than the date, i.e. murder-suicide or spree shootings or vehicle ramming instead of just "attack". People are not going to remember an event by a number but by what it was. Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations
On 5 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that with Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations improving, Pope John Paul II came for a visit (pictured)—and then police discovered 23 land mines planted in the area where he was to have been driven? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Grammar checking
Hi Surtsicna. I just wanted to ask you to take a look at two different sections on "Diana, Princess of Wales", to see if everything is grammatically correct: "Public image" and "Style icon". Ever since I expanded those two sections, I was thinking about asking an experienced user's opinion about them, so if you think any part of those sections is either incorrect or unnecessary, feel free to correct or remove it. Of course, you can choose to do it whenever you like. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 09:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Keivan.f! Everything looks good to me, but you might want to check with a native speaker. I suggest requesting help here. I think you should cut down on the number of citations; one or two per sentence should be enough, while three is excessive if they repeat themselves. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Surtsicna, I hope you are well. I have been expanding the article on Isabella of Aragon and would be grateful of any feedback that you may have. I am hoping that the article will now be promoted from Stub to C/B grade --David (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Flickr
Hi. I found this picture of the Countess of Wessex on Flickr. I just wanted to make sure that it's free. It's been published under the right license but it is said that it's a Press Association photo. Does that the mean the account that has published it on Flickr doesn't own the copyright? Keivan.fTalk 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- It looks okay to me but you might want to check here for confirmation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Tags
Is @Miesianiacal: correct & allowed to collapse both your & my posts, at the Template page? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Removing dates from terror event aritlces
eg 2015 Thalys train attack. It's unclear removing the year is an improvement or even has consensus (guidelines are not hard rules). See Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in the 2010s, most events mark the year it occurred. Given how widespread the year system is already used blindly removing years is definitely going against (a form of) consensus. There is also a trend of naming terror attacks on the date they occur (9/11) as a sort of shorthand, dates are apparently considered important in naming traumatic events because they fix a place and time. There are other arguments, but the point being there are reasons to do it this way, and guidelines are not rules. -- GreenC 01:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Green. Removing the year is defnitely an improvement, since it adds nothing but length to the article title. And if length were desirable, we would name the article 21 August 2015 Thalys high-speed train stabbing attack or something even longer. Bad practices such as this one can be widespread too, and I see no indication that it is the result of any consensus; more likely it is the result of blindly following another bad example. For example, Grenfell Tower fire was once moved to 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, which is ridiculous. In fact, the existence of the guidelines suggests that the consensus is against such practices. I'm sure you agree that the Attack on Pearl Harbor was also quite traumatic, yet we don't call it 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. WP:COMMONNAME is also in favor of dropping the unnecessary years, as the most common name is always without it.
I have linked you to the discussions about similar cases (e.g. Talk:Manchester Arena bombing#Requested move 3 October 2017) in which the community was clearly in favor of following the long-standing guidelines. I don't think I should have to request a move for every single article a) there is a guideline covering this and pure reasons suggests it should not be controversial, b) the arguments are the same and tend to be accepted by the community. If you disagree, however, we can have a move request there too. Surtsicna (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comparing a widely recognised historical event like P Harbour attack, to a relatively obscure incident is borderline perverse. At many of these articles, there has been agreement that the year is helpful (how is one to know that an attack at a Normandy church refers to an event in 2016, not 1944, or for that matter 960 AD). Titling an article is about creating enough recognisable info to inform the reader what it is probably about, it isn't simply distinguishing from other events. As a reader I am frequently annoyed that insufficient info is included in the title.
- If it is at all relevant, I think there is a tendency for European editors to approve of the year addition. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- And how is one to know that an attack at a Normandy church refers to an event in Rouen and not in Alençon or Bayeux? By reading the article of course! Article titles are not supposed to contain vital information about its subject. It's Donald Trump, not President Donald Trump of the United States or Donald Trump (b. 1946). Besides, we cannot possibly expect readers to recognize an event by the year. Years and dates are infamously difficult to remember, actually, as many will recall from their history lessons. While describing the attack as a shooting and stabbing incident might aid recognizability, the year 2015 would not ring any bells to a majority of readers. 31.900 results for "Thalys train attack" and 7.850 results for "2015 Thalys train attack" seem to confirm that.
I haven't noticed that tendency among European editors (myself included), but certainly all contributors should rely on common usage, i.e. secondary sources, more than on their personal preferences. Surtsicna (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- And how is one to know that an attack at a Normandy church refers to an event in Rouen and not in Alençon or Bayeux? By reading the article of course! Article titles are not supposed to contain vital information about its subject. It's Donald Trump, not President Donald Trump of the United States or Donald Trump (b. 1946). Besides, we cannot possibly expect readers to recognize an event by the year. Years and dates are infamously difficult to remember, actually, as many will recall from their history lessons. While describing the attack as a shooting and stabbing incident might aid recognizability, the year 2015 would not ring any bells to a majority of readers. 31.900 results for "Thalys train attack" and 7.850 results for "2015 Thalys train attack" seem to confirm that.
- If it is at all relevant, I think there is a tendency for European editors to approve of the year addition. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thomas of Bosnia
Hello:
The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Thomas of Bosnia has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
RFC notice
More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You may want to add that article to your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
RM's removing dates
You have initiated many many page renames to strip dates from the title. This is clearly controversial as seen by the contentious RMs that sprung up and are now ongoing. Please cease making page moves along these lines en masse. You've done the bold moves and seen there is controversy, there is every reason to expect controversy to continue, the RM process should be used. As the WP:RM says If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. You have reason to expect a dispute. Also, when advertising previous RMs, you should include all of them not just the one's that succeeded. For example 2017 Chicago torture incident. -- GreenC 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)