proper indent |
r MrX |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
:::::Content discussions should be evaluated on their merits, not by who participates in them. By the way, no need to ping me every time you reply. I'm already here. 😏 - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
:::::Content discussions should be evaluated on their merits, not by who participates in them. By the way, no need to ping me every time you reply. I'm already here. 😏 - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::My apologies MrX. My intent was to identify with whom I was communicating, and give separation to the potentially different items. In retrospect, I could skip the templates after one, and use plain text that the template would create. My goal was not to barrage you with pings. [[User:X1\|X1\]] ([[User talk:X1\|talk]]) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
::::::My apologies MrX. My intent was to identify with whom I was communicating, and give separation to the potentially different items. In retrospect, I could skip the templates after one, and use plain text that the template would create. My goal was not to barrage you with pings. [[User:X1\|X1\]] ([[User talk:X1\|talk]]) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::You threw me, MrX, when you stated {{tq|Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard}} and {{tq|not by who participates in them}}; but I do agree with the sentiment that {{tq|content discussions should be evaluated on their merits}}. [[User:X1\|X1\]] ([[User talk:X1\|talk]]) 19:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The issue I have is it taking up large chunks of the see also section for largely the same topic. All seeming to fall under [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections]], so a clean and simple solution would be replace the eight links with one. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
:::::The issue I have is it taking up large chunks of the see also section for largely the same topic. All seeming to fall under [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections]], so a clean and simple solution would be replace the eight links with one. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:37, 23 February 2020
Politics: American Project‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
United States Project‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
There is a discussion which relates to this task force happening here. Please feel free to weigh in there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Update
Can someone please update https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:USSenators --NL19931993 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Intros of the 2020 & 2016 US presidential elections.
Separate discussions, concerning the intros to the 2020 United States presidential election & 2016 United States presidential election articles, are currently happening. Editors' input from this WikiProject, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Timeline spam in see also sections
Several article are getting spammed with links to Timeline articles by X1\. Generally it is most or all of these.
- Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
- Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day)
- Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
- Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017)
- Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)
- Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)
- Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)
- Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)
Some of the articles that seem to have it are Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Oleg Deripaska, and Sergey Kislyak. Though there appear to be tons of articles bombed like that. Should they remain and should some of those timeline articles be merged and condensed? PackMecEng (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- This phenomenon is an abuse of the "See also" sections and should be curtailed. To the more general point, debate on the scope of those timelines has been raging ever since they were created; I don't think there is any way to obtain consensus there. But the spamming must stop. — JFG talk 09:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I partially agree. If a person's name is mentioned multiple time in in these timeline articles, it is very appropriate to link them in the see also sections. An alternative would be a navbox. That said, I think there should only be one timeline article per timeline subject and the content should have to meet a minimum inclusion criteria per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The merging/condensing/spam stopping could be submitted to a centralized RfC is someone can come up with a set of clear inclusion criteria. We were able to (partially) solve a similar issue with political endorsement lists with WP:ERFC. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- The issue there is most of the people from what I can find are just listed in the "Relevant individuals and organizations" section which appears to be copy pasted between articles. I like the centralized RFC idea, I am just terrible at wording those. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- The ones I checked had at least there mentions of the name. I don't know why there needs to be a listing of the names in the articles anyway. wikilinks would tend to serve the same purpose. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- For example Sergey Kislyak is listed only once in Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018), and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020). All in that relevent individuals section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- In the first article, he is mentioned three times (by last name only) in addition to the one time he is listed in the list. I haven't checked the others. - MrX 🖋 17:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was only searching full name. Where would be a good centralized place for a discussion on the merge and condensing? PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- In the first article, he is mentioned three times (by last name only) in addition to the one time he is listed in the list. I haven't checked the others. - MrX 🖋 17:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- For example Sergey Kislyak is listed only once in Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018), and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020). All in that relevent individuals section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- The ones I checked had at least there mentions of the name. I don't know why there needs to be a listing of the names in the articles anyway. wikilinks would tend to serve the same purpose. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- The issue there is most of the people from what I can find are just listed in the "Relevant individuals and organizations" section which appears to be copy pasted between articles. I like the centralized RFC idea, I am just terrible at wording those. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I partially agree. If a person's name is mentioned multiple time in in these timeline articles, it is very appropriate to link them in the see also sections. An alternative would be a navbox. That said, I think there should only be one timeline article per timeline subject and the content should have to meet a minimum inclusion criteria per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The merging/condensing/spam stopping could be submitted to a centralized RfC is someone can come up with a set of clear inclusion criteria. We were able to (partially) solve a similar issue with political endorsement lists with WP:ERFC. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What about in the mean time, while we get that ready, we replace all those links with a link to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which links to all those other timelines and gives more information? PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I guess that's fine. - MrX 🖋 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- JFG Would you be okay with that as well? If so I will start tomorrow with replacing them. PackMecEng (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't
spamming
. These articles are related. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC) - See related context of inclusion v. exclusion at May 2019 DRN also. X1\ (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: see Talk page history for discussion of the epic-ness of this topic. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have participated on the talk page. I abandoned all hope when I realized that I was outnumbered by editors who think we need exhaustively detailed timelines. I don't think that level of detail belongs in an encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 21:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: the "Relevant individuals and organizations" transcluded list was created long ago to avoid errors and repeating info. X1\ (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @MrX: see Talk page history for discussion of the epic-ness of this topic. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- MrX, it won't be
fine
as has already been discussed. Individuals are mentioned in different segments of the continuous Timeline (broken into segments due to Special:LongPages). The current name of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" is intended to be renamed Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before July 2016, which is a highlight of why it is inappropriate (wrong segment of the Timeline) to "consolidate" to that segment. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC) - These tag team deletion motions can be interpreted as vexatious, and a disservice to the wp:Reader. X1\ (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Slow your roll X1\, no one here is tag teaming. Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- And you, MrX, have been hearing from a "team", on one side (here, until now). See the "team's" history at the Timeline(s), as pointed to above, in my comments. X1\ (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Content discussions should be evaluated on their merits, not by who participates in them. By the way, no need to ping me every time you reply. I'm already here. 😏 - MrX 🖋 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies MrX. My intent was to identify with whom I was communicating, and give separation to the potentially different items. In retrospect, I could skip the templates after one, and use plain text that the template would create. My goal was not to barrage you with pings. X1\ (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- You threw me, MrX, when you stated
Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard
andnot by who participates in them
; but I do agree with the sentiment thatcontent discussions should be evaluated on their merits
. X1\ (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- The issue I have is it taking up large chunks of the see also section for largely the same topic. All seeming to fall under Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, so a clean and simple solution would be replace the eight links with one. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Content discussions should be evaluated on their merits, not by who participates in them. By the way, no need to ping me every time you reply. I'm already here. 😏 - MrX 🖋 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- And you, MrX, have been hearing from a "team", on one side (here, until now). See the "team's" history at the Timeline(s), as pointed to above, in my comments. X1\ (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Slow your roll X1\, no one here is tag teaming. Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)