Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | Miscellaneous |
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk. |
« Older discussions, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 |
Centralized discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Proposals: policy | other | Discussions | Ideas |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive. |
|||
Contents
- 1 Ktr101 banned by WMF
- 2 Hi
- 3 Is Wikipedia Citizen Science?
- 4 The article Jediism has been vandalised
- 5 Question about article editing
- 6 Identifying a ship in Scotland
- 7 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver redux
- 8 Editors For Cancer Articles Wanted ASAP
- 9 Global superlatives
- 10 Translating Ibero-America: a new contest about Ibero-American culture now open!
- 11 RfC: Impact of ExxonMobil climate expertise on operational planning at Natuna
- 12 Hello
- 13 Wikimedia Commons link in the "In other projects" section of left column
- 14 African World Heritage Day
- 15 Hypixel
- 16 Repeatedly reverting bot-added template
- 17 Dating postcard
- 18 Enforcing a consensus
Ktr101 banned by WMF
Just note to those who have not seen it that User:Ktr101 was banned by WMF tonight. WMF staff never provide any reasons for globally banning users.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also globally banned were Liliana-60 (talk · contribs), John F. Lewis (talk · contribs) and WayneRay (talk · contribs). See WMF Global Ban Policy for more information. the wub "?!" 10:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- The other three had the global ban converted yesterday to a WMF-ban (not that it changes anything).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, I am wrong, Liliana-60 was only globally blocked yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW the latter is (also) a community ban. –Be..anyone 💩 05:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. Ktr101 had 100,000+ edits and was an OTRS volunteer. Fences&Windows 19:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Just because the gods above choose to strike someone down with a lightning bolt without explaining why, that doesn't mean their reasoning is completely inscrutable. Does anyone have any insight into why this might have happened? Everyking (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi
How's it going? South Nashua (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello? South Nashua (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bueller? South Nashua (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is Haywards open for the season yet? --Jayron32 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Haven't gone over yet. I used to love their Lime Rickeys. Guess they'd count as South Nashua. Although for me, the border is just north of that house with all the gas station pumps. South Nashua (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, on the border certainly. I've always thought of South Nashua usually starting where Main Street becomes the DW Highway right where South Main branches off at Rivier (which is pretty much exactly where Haywards is located). Still a great place on a warm summer night. And local too; unlike all the chain stuff down on DW Highway. --Jayron32 01:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely wouldn't argue with that. Anything within the Exit 3 area. In any case, I'm looking to do more on Wikipedia. Not sure where to turn. Wondering if I could get some guidance. (P.S. - There's a new mom and pop Mediterranean place in the Trader Joe's plaza there. It's pretty good) South Nashua (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's some interesting history stuff one could expand on, Dunstable, New Hampshire could use some love, [This book looks like it may be the start of something interesting. --Jayron32 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That looks neat. I will try to get to it when I have a chance. I wanted to do something about breaking down the American Civil War by year, I looked and didn't see a timeline, but maybe I was looking in the wrong place. South Nashua (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- There's some interesting history stuff one could expand on, Dunstable, New Hampshire could use some love, [This book looks like it may be the start of something interesting. --Jayron32 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I definitely wouldn't argue with that. Anything within the Exit 3 area. In any case, I'm looking to do more on Wikipedia. Not sure where to turn. Wondering if I could get some guidance. (P.S. - There's a new mom and pop Mediterranean place in the Trader Joe's plaza there. It's pretty good) South Nashua (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, on the border certainly. I've always thought of South Nashua usually starting where Main Street becomes the DW Highway right where South Main branches off at Rivier (which is pretty much exactly where Haywards is located). Still a great place on a warm summer night. And local too; unlike all the chain stuff down on DW Highway. --Jayron32 01:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Haven't gone over yet. I used to love their Lime Rickeys. Guess they'd count as South Nashua. Although for me, the border is just north of that house with all the gas station pumps. South Nashua (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is Haywards open for the season yet? --Jayron32 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bueller? South Nashua (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia Citizen Science?
Simply, is Wikipedia Citizen science (CS) and are Wikipedians citizen scientists? I guess the crux of the matter is whether Wikipedia is seen as a science project. If so, then Wikipedians collect and manage science data as any good citizen scientist should. Personally, I think Wikipedia is a CS project and so is possibly the most successful example. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a similar concept, but by WP:NOR we don't do science. We are amateur scholars. We report on science and many other things. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jim is correct. We are not collectors or managers, we are reporters (of what reliable sources have said). Blueboar (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- It could be called "Citizen encyclopedism" (I didn't know that word until I made it up!) (CE) if you like. And I notice I'm not first to coin that term. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- So Wikipedians are 'citizen scholars', rather than citizen scientists? Either/or? Is it that a 'scholar' seems better in some way than just a citizen scientist. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thankyou for your opinions. It is now obvious that WP isn't CS, but I have never considered myself a monk or scholar. I'm certainly a citizen scientist. Now 'Citizen scholar' seems more appropriate.Richard Nowell (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jim is correct. We are not collectors or managers, we are reporters (of what reliable sources have said). Blueboar (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a crowd sourced encyclopedia. --Jayron32 15:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- So Wikipedians (WPs) are crowdsourced scholars, reporters, writers, historians, general summarisers, participants and collaborators. WP is a crowdsourced online encyclopedia. It's good to be clear about these things.Richard Nowell (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
A few are incidentally scientists. Most are incidentally citizens of some place. We may be either, or neither, or both. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Jediism has been vandalised
Undo the vandalism--77.66.234.102 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Question about article editing
Does anyone think it is ok for an article on a notable subject to go from this [1] to this [2] in a matter of two hours? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, It was fringe cleanup. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Identifying a ship in Scotland
Last year I took some pictures of a coastal ship. Unfortunately the pictures are not scharp enough to read the name. (also File:Oversteek Armadale Mallaig 6.JPG and File:Oversteek Armadale Mallaig 4.JPG) Are there Scots who know this ship. I suspect the ship is local.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've added the images to Commons:Category:Unidentified ships. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Washington Carver redux
Can I get some thoughts on this situation, please? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Editors For Cancer Articles Wanted ASAP
Before I make my request, I wish to apologize in advance. I am a brand new member and I realize that making a request as my first act on the site may offend some people. Please, that is not my intent and I respectfully ask for your assistance because it is for a noble cause. My best friend and boss (who lost his father to cancer) also has the disease. As a memorial to his father, he created a website to help cancer patients, survivors, care givers and family members with articles directed at their particular needs.
There is a storehouse of information that would be valuable in the Wikipedia format. Therefore, I am putting out a request for editors to assist in the editing process of these works (which will be uploaded in the next several days). Now I do realize that there is a huge backlog of works to be edited but my request is humanitarian in nature. My friend is a two time survivor and once again his cancer has come back with a vengeance. There is a strong possibility (with his latest prognosis) that he will not see the end of the year.
It is his wish to leave his website and the works published here as a final legacy. Therefore, I respectfully ask for your help and truly hope you understand that this is a legitimate request. I do not make this lightly nor is it simply an attempt to rush the line. I sincerely hope that what I have written conveys to you my true sentiments and goal.
If you can help out, please leave me a message on my talk page.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightmaniac45 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Midnightmaniac45. We'll need a bit more information about copyrights and things like that before we can consider anything. Perhaps Doc James will be interested in helping you figure out what you've got. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Global superlatives
There are sixteen articles (I think) using "in the world":
- List of highest railways in the world
- List of highest large cities in the world
- List of highest railways in the world
- List of highest bridges in the world
- List of highest large cities in the world
- List of tallest towers in the world
- List of tallest bridges in the world
- List of tallest chimneys in the world
- List of tallest lighthouses in the world
- List of tallest dams in the world
- List of tallest buildings and structures in the world
- List of tallest freestanding structures in the world
- List of tallest structures in the world
- List of tallest structures in the world – 300 to 400 metres
- List of tallest structures in the world – 400 to 500 metres
- List of tallest twin buildings and structures in the world
So,
- A: Page moves to get rid of "in the world"
- B: Leave it, can of worms, not broken, why bother, redirects, cleanup, pain in the butt
I'm leaning toward "B", but it's kind of gnawing at me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- So the way I see it is that if the thing can only occur on this world (as far as we know) than the phrase in the world is extra and unneeded. This is true for the things above but not true for everything. Tallest mountains for example would have to specify where exactly those mountains are as mountains occur on many different worlds. So I'm leaning more towards A as a matter of streamlining. --Majora (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Majora. As all these only occur "in the world" and the lists are not interplanetary in scope, the phrase seems unneeded here and I'm inclined to think all these lists should be renamed. A redirect with the longer name will keep its benefit for users. I'd recommend that the proposed new short name be searched for all other pages with the same prefix using either (Cirrus) search or Special:PrefixIndex to identify any special cases that might require extra thought. PS The "large cities" link is given twice. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The editor in me says to get rid of any unnecessary descriptors. So long as it is clear what the adjective is referring to, extra wording, though technically correct, should be excised. Extra wording like that is only useful if you're trying to make a word count :) DiscantX 10:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't disagree... But shortening the title may cause more problems than leaving it alone. To my mind a shorter title such as List of highest railways is imprecise as to its scope. It could be a list of the highest railways in the world (the intended scope) .. Or it could be a list of the highest railway in each nation (including the highest railway in, say, the Netherlands... which is not very high). Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- My feeling is that when you include a superlative without a further qualifier, it should be taken to mean 'the most that we know of." So if it isn't said that it is a list of the tallest chimneys in Chilliwack, for instance, then it is safe to assume that it is a list of the tallest chimneys known to us, be it in the world, the universe etc, until of course we find a distant civilization that has really tall chimneys, in which case we can go ahead and qualify our lists further. DiscantX 12:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think that's appropriate. For lists where the "most" of something might include other planets, the terrestrial list can be "on Earth" instead. South Nashua (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree. Without qualification over scope, the largest scope that makes sense by default should be used. I think this is what people most often do in normal speech and writing and it also makes the most sense logically. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- On Blueboar's comment: If you have two lists – the 10 tallest chimneys in the world, and the tallest chimney in each country – then you could name them List of tallest chimneys and List of tallest chimney per country, or something like that. (If there's only one list, then the shorter name will do, regardless of the actual content.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Translating Ibero-America: a new contest about Ibero-American culture now open!
Dear all,
On behalf of Iberocoop, we want to invite you all to participate in our translating contest about Ibero-American culture.
The contest, launched today, will be open to participate until the 31st of May. Ibero -America has a rich cultural and historical heritage. Through this contest we want to make known our culture and bring new contents to other Wikipedias.
You can find the contents here: Translating Ibero-America
We wait for you to participate!
--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Impact of ExxonMobil climate expertise on operational planning at Natuna
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy#RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning. Should the following, bolded for clarity, be added to ExxonMobil climate change controversy?
Exxon also studied ways of avoiding CO2 emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) offshore of Indonesia were developed. An October 1984 internal report from Exxon's top climate modelers said that the gas field contained over 70% carbon dioxide and that if the carbon dioxide were released to the atmosphere it would make the gas field "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." Members of Exxon's board of directors told Exxon staff that the gas field could not be developed without a cost-effective and environmentally responsible method for handling the CO2.
Please comment at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy#RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)}
- @HughD: This is clearly an inappropriate location for the request, unless you want to remove all your other WikiProject pings (which might not be a bad idea). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are invited to comment. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Arthur Rubin HughD's first topic bans were enacted after a routine of announcing an RFC at a new location after a new location once it started going against him and as an excuse to delay any attempts to close it. You'll have to take it to ANI if this is occurring again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that this editor has notified WPs very selectively and continues to ignore the request to treat all relevant WPs equally, although this request has been added to the RfD discussion already three times. Beagel (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a devil's advocate, I should point out a proper solution to that is to edit all his existing announcements, and to create identical neutral announcements in all relevant WikiProjects (and remove all announcements made to individual articles), and close this announcement. It's not going to happen, because he'll revert the removal of his non-neutral text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that this editor has notified WPs very selectively and continues to ignore the request to treat all relevant WPs equally, although this request has been added to the RfD discussion already three times. Beagel (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Question Since this is being discussed here, are there rules as to what makes a RfC announcement neutral? Hugh has created quite a few RfCs recently. Once the RfC is made he posts many announcements, particurally if he isn't happy with the current result (see this swell of notifications after almost 30 days here [3]). Anyway, the notifications are typically of the form above. A simple question, "should X be added" and then a long quote and references. Is that really a neutral announcement? To me that would tend to bias the reader because it makes it sound like there is no other context. Regardless, it also makes the notifications quite long. Also, so long as I'm asking, what is the proper way to protest what appears to be a non-neutral or problematic RfC? In this case we have a RfC that doesn't mention the previous discussions. In the Chrysler case the RfC provides an exact quote but I think many of the supporters only support the material in general, not the exact quote thus a "support" vote may be confused. To what extent can others modify the RfC without being seen as trying to disrupt the process? Thanks Springee (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've actually edited one of his postings down to (equivalently) You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy#RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning. [sig] before, which is about right per WP:Canvassing; I would tend to agree that adding the question at the place of advertisement could possibly bias the answer. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Note that Anthony Anenih has died according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons link in the "In other projects" section of left column
I must have missed the discussion. Do you see it in articles now? Search "in other projects". Does this mean no more adding the commons category link to articles? Will a bot remove them? I see no mention of this at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons. I must be missing something obvious. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Those links are populated by Wikidata. You could remove the template, but the few discussions I've seen have disagreed with removing it... it probably deserves a central discussion or an RFC. --Izno (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, Izno. Frankly, I don't mind if it's there or not. I just want to know if we keep adding commonscat links to articles, or if this is meant to be a replacement. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I recently tried a central discussion, it did not attract any interest and got archived still without being closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I remember seeing it, but I'm not sure you tagged it with {{rfc}}... --Izno (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think I did, will try to find it later.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sidenote: See WT:Centralized discussion#Incomplete archives, will try to improve instructions. --Pipetricker (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think I did, will try to find it later.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I remember seeing it, but I'm not sure you tagged it with {{rfc}}... --Izno (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anna Frodesiak: Just so I don't misunderstand, by "in other projects box" you mean the "In other projects" heading and the links below it in the left column of many pages, right? And I assume commons category links are those added by Template:Commons category and similar templates. --Pipetricker (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Pipetricker. See the screenshot. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Aha, you're using the MonoBook skin, where the headings in the left column begin with a lowercase letter, and the section under each heading looks like a box. In the default Vector skin, first letters are capitalized and there are no boxes, hence my confusion. --Pipetricker (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Pipetricker. See the screenshot. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
African World Heritage Day
Hi all
Today is African World Heritage Day and I have created a small project to help improve knowledge of African World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia in all languages. Please get involved and also share the link to encourage more people to take part. Whilst all of the sites have an article in English I'm sure there are sites that could be improved.
Many thanks
John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, not all the sites have English articles (though all of them are of course somehow covered). I got a bit of time today to create Amphitheatre of El Jem.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ymblanter , thanks very much :) John Cummings (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hypixel
I tagged Draft:Hypixel as a db-advert because it looks like an advertising brochure. The author deleted the tag [4]; Should I revert the tag deletion? -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, as I would reject db-advert too. The person who removed the tag is not the creator of the page, so other version can be reverted to. Excessive stuff can be removed by editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Repeatedly reverting bot-added template
- (Original topic heading was: "Edit war between two bots".)
It's funny to see two bots fighting each other. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Niceguyedc is not a bot, and appears to be making correct edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is correct. I'm not a bot. As mentioned here, there is a problem in the database that is causing the DPL bot to think that there are many incoming links to that article (and a few others), when there are no incoming links at all. I'm removing the tag because it isn't true, and so that any of the disambiguators that look at the Disambiguation pages with many incoming links category don't see pages there that don't belong. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames has implemented the correct workaround at the dab page: diff because it is pointless to repeatedly revert a bot. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Haha yep Johnuniq I was just about to post that. I'm not sure why that template wasn't just added in the first place. Omni Flames let's talk about it 09:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for calling you a bot, Niceguyedc. I got that impression because of your repeated edit summary "v1.38 - remove incoming links tag" and Tag:WPCleaner. Were you using a tool called WPCleaner to do the reverts? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. I use WP:CLEANER to make most of my edits. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 12:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for calling you a bot, Niceguyedc. I got that impression because of your repeated edit summary "v1.38 - remove incoming links tag" and Tag:WPCleaner. Were you using a tool called WPCleaner to do the reverts? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, the template code used to deny the bot until the database has been fixed is
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Haha yep Johnuniq I was just about to post that. I'm not sure why that template wasn't just added in the first place. Omni Flames let's talk about it 09:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Omni Flames has implemented the correct workaround at the dab page: diff because it is pointless to repeatedly revert a bot. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is correct. I'm not a bot. As mentioned here, there is a problem in the database that is causing the DPL bot to think that there are many incoming links to that article (and a few others), when there are no incoming links at all. I'm removing the tag because it isn't true, and so that any of the disambiguators that look at the Disambiguation pages with many incoming links category don't see pages there that don't belong. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Dating postcard
I strongly suspect it was printed in 1940 as it has the quote from Churchill on the backside: This is the time for everyone to stand together and hold firm. However the pictures could have been from before, as this doesnt look like wartime. On Google I find similar postcards.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Dating the cars is probably the way to go. By the looks, the registration plate we see, TU6004, should have been issued on or prior to 1932, according to our article on UK registration plates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Enforcing a consensus
I sometimes come across people reverting something on the basis of a consensus and I recently came across one who seems to think one is obliged to do it even if they disagree with the consensus. Actually I think they agree with the consensus but I think their 'consensus' is inapplicable, but disregarding that, how do people feel about the idea? I think one should only revert a change based on some consensus if one agrees with the consensus, after all a consensus can always change and we are all free to opt out of doing things we don't agree with. At most I think one should just warn on the talk page and point to the discussion. If there is a real consensus then some other people will come along and say so. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus concerned was mediated by an admin assessing all the available sources and resolved a long running dispute which involve a lot of socks. One of a series around issues on British Isles articles, In general some one agrees with, some one is unhappy with but once resolved its time to move on. If someone can find evidence that contradicts the earlier findings fine, raise it again. ----Snowded TALK 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus indeed can change. As it is with any other content disputes, the deciding factor is inevitably editors. If enough editors prefer something in an article or series of articles, that something will be implemented. Likewise, if enough editors want something kept out of an article or series of articles, that something won't be implemented. It's a secure feeling, when you're on the majority side. But, very frustrating when you're on the minority side. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)