User talk:Clovermoss
|
||||||||||||||
Newbie Central
[edit]Are you a newcomer to Wikipedia? Here are some resources that you may find helpful:
- There's this video that explains some of the basics of how Wikipedia works. It's aimed more towards readers than editors, but it can give a decent foundation of some things to be aware of before you start editing. This video by an experienced Wikipedian provides more substantial advice. There is also this series.
- The Wikipedia Adventure. This is a very basic (and somewhat eccentric) editing tutorial.
- Do you have a conflict-of-interest? Read this guide. It's also important to be aware of an ongoing scam.
- Category:All stub articles which is organized alphabetically and by topic. All these articles could be expanded!
- This is a tutorial for what to know if you wanted to create an article. Our guideline on what is notable for inclusion on the site is a crucial part of this process.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch – advice on phrasing to avoid when editing
- This page is a glossary of different terms used on Wikipedia that can help you understand what people are talking about if you come across an unfamiliar acronym.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory – this is a list of wikiprojects. Some are way more active than others but it's a decent way to try and find groups of articles that match your interests. I'm particularly fond of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and the associated challenge for improving articles.
- This is the perennial sources list, which can be helpful if you're not sure if something is a reliable source. If it's not on this list and you have concerns, try this noticeboard.
- If you are in a disagreement with another editor, you can try asking for a third opinion. There are also other processes for dispute resolution.
- The Wikipedia Library – this cannot be used until you have 6 months tenure, no active blocks, and 500 edits. However, once you meet the criteria, it is a very useful resource. There is also the Wikipedia:Resource Exchange. I have subscriptions to the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and Niagara Falls Review, if you ever want me to verify something for you. I also have access to the James A. Gibson library at Brock University.
Soap
[edit]It’s one thing to assume good faith but I don’t think it’s helpful to go beyond that and ‘imbue’ good faith instead. The source in question isn’t just ‘mainly’ about the abuse scandal, it is wholly about it. The source doesn’t discuss other matters unrelated to abuse, and it isn’t a source that would just pop up as the first source when searching for ‘governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses’. I appreciate that you’re being conciliatory and also that I should have been less ‘bitey’. However, it can also be ultimately unhelpful to appear naive, and concluding that there was no intent of directing attention to the controversy seems in error.—Jeffro77 Talk 01:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jeffro77: With all due respect, I don't think my comment at Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Source material was naive. I prefer to take people, especially new editors, at their word until I have reason to believe otherwise. The initial response could have just been about why this wasn't the best reference to use in this situation without questioning their motives for adding it. In my opinion, to do otherwise just unnecessarily escalates things. Maybe they were reading that article, decided to look up what the Governing Body was, came across the article (saw the tag) and thought oh I could cite what I was just reading? No one's a mind reader so I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt unless they're acting egregiously bad. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I chose my words quite deliberately when I said “appear naive”. Adding one secondary source to a statement already supported by a secondary source and no primary source wasn't really addressing the tag about primary sources, was it.—Jeffro77 Talk 02:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but someone with about 100 edits to the site doesn't necessarily know how to fix a tag in one edit. I prefer to give constructive, encouraging advice to newcomers. I simply don't understand why you reacted this way to someone adding a reference (not even changing the content) to the article. Also, both the sources cited in that sentence are primary (as they're both JW publications). I genuinely think this edit was made in good faith. I'm fairly confident that other editors would say the same. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I chose my words quite deliberately when I said “appear naive”. Adding one secondary source to a statement already supported by a secondary source and no primary source wasn't really addressing the tag about primary sources, was it.—Jeffro77 Talk 02:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I was editing on mobile, I construed the earlier Penton source as the other source and did not notice the intervening statement in body text that was separately cited with a primary source🤦♂️, so I do apologise for that. However, I maintain that the chosen source is pointedly soapy.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jeffro77: You've struck the comment, which makes me think better of you, but I must concur that it is quite rude to accuse someone of picking a source for a citation with the intent to make an edgy political statement. You are correct that using that source might make such a statement regardless, but there is not any decent reason to assume that someone is doing it on purpose, especially if they are a noob with 120 edits. They are going around doing normal new-editor gnome stuff. Why would you not assume good faith? jp×g🗯️ 13:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The content of the source contrasted with the actual point cited quite obviously suggests a motivation to give attention to the abuse scandal. It doesn’t mean it’s the editor’s sole motivation or they’re evil incarnate, and the editor may even believe that highlighting the scandal is in good faith, but the intention of the edit itself is fairly clear.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jeffro77: As someone who frequents Clover's talk page, I'm quite disappointed to see the repeated assumptions of bad faith and the extremely disappointing behaviour you displayed towards a newer editor who appeared to be acting in good faith. I'm also disappointed in how you're behaving towards Clovermoss, an experienced editor who when you spend a lick of time paying attention to how they conduct themselves, is clearly one of our best editors in terms of acting in good faith and helping with editor retention.
- What is your expectation? A source that only casually mentions the abuse scandal? OF COURSE sources that discuss the abuse scandal at an appropriate level of depth would be seeking to give attention to said scandal. That's how every news story in the world, and how news itself, works. If anybody writes something they hope that it gets read, and I find your concern about this, and using it as a disqualifying factor to be strange. If an editor sees a gap in an area they're interested in and attempts to fill it, that should be commended, they should be coached, they shouldn't be treated with any type of faith assumptions or aspersions.
- Frankly, in watching this from a distance, I'm concerned about your ability to be impartial towards Jehovah's Witnesses as a subject matter and how you evaluate sources. I think you owe both Clover and AzanathInthevoid an apology, as they're both very clearly working to improve content that you're interested in. However, I'm feeling a tinge of ownership regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, you have misrepresented the issue. The source would be totally appropriate in an article about the scandal. The source about the scandal was added where neither the cited fact nor the article was directly related to the scandal, nor does the source discuss the cited fact. I have also explicitly stated that a person highlighting a scandal may be acting in good faith, particularly if they are not aware of Wikipedia’s policies. I have now directly apologised to the editor in question.—Jeffro77 Talk 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds like a pretty genuine and honest mistake. I myself put a reference in the wrong spot just yesterday. I'm glad to hear you apologized to the editor, and I'm grateful you did so. With that said, I don't see a scenario in which someone adding a reference should be accused of soap soaping and that not being an assumption of bad faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The source was not merely ‘in the wrong spot’. Irrelevantly directing attention to a scandal is pretty much the definition of soapboxing (I’ve not seen it called “soap soaping” before). Also, a person might personally believe that highlighting a scandal is always morally justified, so your assessment that it is necessarily an assumption of bad faith is also incorrect.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jeffro77: I think you're misunderstanding what soap boxing is, so you should rethink your usage of the term. Sorry that my comment had a typpo, but that doesn't invalidate the ownership and clear assumptions of bad faith you've been displaying and getting pushback on. Again, grateful you apologized to the editor, but it doesn't make it right how you went at them in the first place. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have already acknowledged that my initial response did not take into account the newness of the editor and made possibly incorrect assumptions about their understanding of the rules. I have already apologised for that. I am quite aware what soapboxing is, I am aware that there can be different degrees of soapboxing, and that it includes giving undue weight to a controversy. I am also aware that a person who draws attention to a scandal is not necessarily doing so in bad faith even where it is against the platform’s rules.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Jeffro77: I think you're misunderstanding what soap boxing is, so you should rethink your usage of the term. Sorry that my comment had a typpo, but that doesn't invalidate the ownership and clear assumptions of bad faith you've been displaying and getting pushback on. Again, grateful you apologized to the editor, but it doesn't make it right how you went at them in the first place. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The source was not merely ‘in the wrong spot’. Irrelevantly directing attention to a scandal is pretty much the definition of soapboxing (I’ve not seen it called “soap soaping” before). Also, a person might personally believe that highlighting a scandal is always morally justified, so your assessment that it is necessarily an assumption of bad faith is also incorrect.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds like a pretty genuine and honest mistake. I myself put a reference in the wrong spot just yesterday. I'm glad to hear you apologized to the editor, and I'm grateful you did so. With that said, I don't see a scenario in which someone adding a reference should be accused of soap soaping and that not being an assumption of bad faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, you have misrepresented the issue. The source would be totally appropriate in an article about the scandal. The source about the scandal was added where neither the cited fact nor the article was directly related to the scandal, nor does the source discuss the cited fact. I have also explicitly stated that a person highlighting a scandal may be acting in good faith, particularly if they are not aware of Wikipedia’s policies. I have now directly apologised to the editor in question.—Jeffro77 Talk 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Editor reflections question
[edit]Hi, Clovermoss … just curious whether you plan to eventually summarize the main themes you see in all this fascinating information you've gathered. I found myself glued to the current batch of surveys as I read through them. Not sure I'll tackle the earlier 200 responses, though it would be tempting. It was such a hoot to find that two of your respondents confessed to joining Wikipedia as vandals but then to "finding religion" and now contributing in more constructive ways! Augnablik (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Augnablik: I did some analysis in my mobile editing session at WikiConference North America. There hasn't been an uploading of the recording (I wish there was) but my slides are here. I'm planning on a more detailed analysis once there's 300 reflections. It'll be at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections/Analysis if you want to have it watchlisted for when its created. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll save the slides for my next coffee break, and definitely watchlist the analysis.
- Even though newbies need to focus on learning the ropes around Wikidom, I think it would be great along about their second or third month of active contributions to find out about this project so they can read a few of the responses (perhaps cherry-picked to represent different facets of Wiki experience) … and see how those further along the road dealt with similar challenges. Newbies and even still-newish editors can begin to feel so overwhelmed as they come to realize the vast amount of Wiki policy and guidelines, and the ease with which they could get into trouble. So when we see how even some of those we look up to as The Seniors went through similar stuff, especially if they weave a bit of humor into their stories, it can humanize everything and give hope. Augnablik (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
non-urgent requests for admin attention
[edit]Re: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Clarification_on_what_soapboxing_is_or_isn't: Generally a good choice is WP:AN, the kinder gentler and lower-drama place to ask for more eyes from other admins. Valereee (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I don't necessarily need an adminstrative opinion, though. Going to AN may be less high drama than ANI, but it's still relatively high drama, isn't it? Village Pump Miscellaneous seems like the catch all place you go when nothing else fits, which is why I went there. I'm not opposed to considering another venue, but it seemed like a decent place to get other experienced editors perspectives on what counts as soapboxing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't meant to imply I thought VPM was a bad place. Just that AN is an option, and there are plenty of experienced non-admins there. Just fewer people shouting 'boomerang' and such. I've found it a good place to take anything non-urgent that needs more eyes, but of course YMMV. Valereee (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that. I think I'll wait and see what happens and then go from there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't meant to imply I thought VPM was a bad place. Just that AN is an option, and there are plenty of experienced non-admins there. Just fewer people shouting 'boomerang' and such. I've found it a good place to take anything non-urgent that needs more eyes, but of course YMMV. Valereee (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2025
[edit]- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics
- Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia
Conservative Judaism
[edit]I've answered your question at a bit more length on my talk page, but the short answer is that the difference between "conservative" as an ordinary adjective and the upper-case form used for Conservative Judaism is like the difference between "democratic" (referring to democracy) and "Democratic" (referring to a US political party): "the Canadian parliament is a democratic institution" vs. "the New York State legislature has a Democratic majority." UrielAcosta (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Chaput v. Romain
[edit]Hi @Clovermoss, I just noticed that you had started a draft early last year. I had not seen your draft and made one using the name Chaput v. Romain (the period after the v is the norm for Canadian Supreme Court Cases).
What do you recommend we do? I suggest keeping Chaput v. Romain, it is the right name and has already been submitted to AfC.
Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: I was under the impression that the norm for Canadian legal cases was the other way around, to not include the period, at least on Wikipedia. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz would probably know for sure. Usually what happens in these situations is thar the newer content is merged into the older one. However, your draft is a bit more fleshed out than my draft so maybe this should be the other way around for convenience's sake? I'll ask for a second opinion on that but in the meantime I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you're interested in Canadian legal cases, there's a few more mentioned at Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada and the redlinks there do not currently have drafts as far as I know. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: I'd also like to know what source supports the sentence
The case is the first of three of significant Supreme Court Cases related to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claims against Quebec authorities
because as far as I can tell, the one cited in the next sentence does not verify this text. There were other Canadian Supreme Court cases around this time, such as Lamb v Benoit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- @CF-501 Falcon: Okay, I asked for a second opinion on discord and they said that in this circumstance it was likely best to follow the norm, which is to merge into the older draft. I have now done so and moved the draft to mainspace at Chaput v Romain. I'll wait to see what the expected Wikipedia:Naming convention is, but if you're correct on that, then I'll move it (and some other pages) to include the period in the title. I've temporarily created a redirect to prevent an AfC reviewer from accidently accepting a duplicate draft. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss, I saw your comment in the edit history. I believe I meant to say the appeal was sustained. This might explain [1] . Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: Feel free to reinstate it then. It'd help to clarify the meaning. The goal is to write things in a way that the average person can understand and sometimes that means linking technical terms. You seem to be more familiar with legal terminology than I am, so I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. I just have a tendency to read a lot of legal things. Question, Should I add the Infobox SSC? Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: I don't mind if you want to add the infobox. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. I just have a tendency to read a lot of legal things. Question, Should I add the Infobox SSC? Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: Feel free to reinstate it then. It'd help to clarify the meaning. The goal is to write things in a way that the average person can understand and sometimes that means linking technical terms. You seem to be more familiar with legal terminology than I am, so I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss, I saw your comment in the edit history. I believe I meant to say the appeal was sustained. This might explain [1] . Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't remember where I got that from. It may have been from the one in the next sentence. If it isn't verifiable feel free to remove it. No hard feelings. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: Okay, I asked for a second opinion on discord and they said that in this circumstance it was likely best to follow the norm, which is to merge into the older draft. I have now done so and moved the draft to mainspace at Chaput v Romain. I'll wait to see what the expected Wikipedia:Naming convention is, but if you're correct on that, then I'll move it (and some other pages) to include the period in the title. I've temporarily created a redirect to prevent an AfC reviewer from accidently accepting a duplicate draft. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I may be completely wrong as I am fairly new. Thank you for checking! Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: and you may be right, who knows. I think you're off to a really good start for a newbie. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Clovermoss. I haven't really interacted with many senior editors other than from the Teahouse, but you are really friendly. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: and you may be right, who knows. I think you're off to a really good start for a newbie. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon: I'd also like to know what source supports the sentence
SCOTUS case categories
[edit]Hey Clovermoss,
I think the "United States Supreme Court cases in YEAR" categories are a good idea. However, Category:United States Supreme Court cases is a non-diffusing subcategory, so it should appear on all case articles. In the future, please only replace "YEAR in United States case law" with "United States Supreme Court cases in YEAR" without removing the parent category. Thanks. lethargilistic (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lethargilistic: Why is it non-diffusing? The reason I started this task was because the category had more than 4,000 pages in it and it seems impossible to navigate a category that that's big. I was under the impression that use cases for non-diffusing categories are quite limited? Like women scientists and scientists. I asked another editor before I started doing this, HouseBlaster, so I hope to hear them chip in here as well. Maybe they'll be able to explain it to me in a way that makes better sense. Anyways, I'll pause for now. I wasn't planning on doing this all at once to begin with because I can't stand doing the same repetitive task for so long without breaks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- At least from my perspective, this topic seems like it should absolutely be diffused. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah. I missed that it was a non-diffusing category, which is my fault. My sincere apologies. Clovermoss, the category is marked as {{all included}}, which means we should use both the in [year] and the generic category. I'm guessing that it aids navigation if you know the case name but not the year a case was argued/decided and need to find it via the category. The {{Large category TOC}} helps you sort for specific articles, so it's not as bad as it seems. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: What I don't get is how people decide what categories to diffuse or not. The gender and sexuality exceptions make sense, but I don't understand why you wouldn't diffuse a category with 4,000 articles in it but would for Category:Rivers of Europe. This seems like the very definition of overcrowded. As for navigation, if you know the case name, why wouldn't you just look up the article instead of digging through categorization? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel comfortable making a definitive statement about why that was decided because I was not there. However, I would suggest that the current categorization scheme for a generic SCOTUS case represents the main two ways people actually discuss SCOTUS cases: as SCOTUS cases and as SCOTUS cases of a particular Chief Justice's tenure. There are also subcategories for special cases like overruled ones or per curium ones; those kinds of unrelated subclassifications also make it a candidate for a non-diffusing parent category, IMO. I see your suggested change more as a subcategory of "YEAR in United States case law" than as a subcategory of "United States supreme court cases". In any event, a change like this that would affect every case article should be discussed with WP:SCOTUS first because it would definitely affect our maintenance reports. (Also, I would suggest that, if it is decided to go through with this change, it could be done via a bot.) lethargilistic (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lethargilistic: The reason I care is because categorization should make sense to the average editor and I don't like it when there's weird exceptions to rules. I don't know enough about categorization to say definitively when or why certain reasons apply, but I just care from the standpoint of this shouldn't be rocket science for experienced editors to even figure out, you know? I'm not opposed to you notifying WP:SCOTUS but there's always the danger of specific wikiprojects going against the wider norms of the project (WP:LOCALCON). I'll think I'll probably leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and go from there? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- With respect, I just described the general practice of how most people discuss SCOTUS cases, so I don't think it's fair to characterize that as "rocket science" or inherently unfamiliar to the average editor. In contrast, people do not generally differentiate the cases by year, which is why I think it makes sense to subcategorize "YEAR in US case law" this way but not "SCOTUS cases". I think the category should follow what people actually do and expect. If you want to expand this conversation to the larger community, I guess you can do so. lethargilistic (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- So in general bot/technical maintenance is a valid reason to avoid diffusion. See, for instance, Category:Living people, which contains all BLPs to trigger the boilerplate BLP editnotice. Not sure what maintenance reports are being used, but that is a valid reason to avoid diffusion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lethargilistic: It's not how you're describing it, or even this specific situation, it's just how I feel about the categorization system in general. Every once and awhile I try to understand how categorization works and it feels like this immense maze that's impossible to understand. It's a very frustrating experience and I feel like I can't be the only one who feels that way. New editors often have a hard time understanding various aspects of Wikipedia and I feel like if I, an experienced editor, feel this way about categories... other people must feel that way too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, categorization is a fraught social topic to begin with. While I appreciate the desire to have simple rules (and I think the current practice here follows the rules), it is impossible to design a perfect categorization system that satisfies all people in all cases, so consistency with a grand plan cannot be the only metric by which we judge them. This is, appropriately enough, one of the most important tensions in the law, and legal inflexibility has caused a lot of injustice in the world. (but, blahblahblah, my hobbyhorse.) lethargilistic (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lethargilistic: It's not how you're describing it, or even this specific situation, it's just how I feel about the categorization system in general. Every once and awhile I try to understand how categorization works and it feels like this immense maze that's impossible to understand. It's a very frustrating experience and I feel like I can't be the only one who feels that way. New editors often have a hard time understanding various aspects of Wikipedia and I feel like if I, an experienced editor, feel this way about categories... other people must feel that way too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lethargilistic: The reason I care is because categorization should make sense to the average editor and I don't like it when there's weird exceptions to rules. I don't know enough about categorization to say definitively when or why certain reasons apply, but I just care from the standpoint of this shouldn't be rocket science for experienced editors to even figure out, you know? I'm not opposed to you notifying WP:SCOTUS but there's always the danger of specific wikiprojects going against the wider norms of the project (WP:LOCALCON). I'll think I'll probably leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and go from there? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel comfortable making a definitive statement about why that was decided because I was not there. However, I would suggest that the current categorization scheme for a generic SCOTUS case represents the main two ways people actually discuss SCOTUS cases: as SCOTUS cases and as SCOTUS cases of a particular Chief Justice's tenure. There are also subcategories for special cases like overruled ones or per curium ones; those kinds of unrelated subclassifications also make it a candidate for a non-diffusing parent category, IMO. I see your suggested change more as a subcategory of "YEAR in United States case law" than as a subcategory of "United States supreme court cases". In any event, a change like this that would affect every case article should be discussed with WP:SCOTUS first because it would definitely affect our maintenance reports. (Also, I would suggest that, if it is decided to go through with this change, it could be done via a bot.) lethargilistic (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: What I don't get is how people decide what categories to diffuse or not. The gender and sexuality exceptions make sense, but I don't understand why you wouldn't diffuse a category with 4,000 articles in it but would for Category:Rivers of Europe. This seems like the very definition of overcrowded. As for navigation, if you know the case name, why wouldn't you just look up the article instead of digging through categorization? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah. I missed that it was a non-diffusing category, which is my fault. My sincere apologies. Clovermoss, the category is marked as {{all included}}, which means we should use both the in [year] and the generic category. I'm guessing that it aids navigation if you know the case name but not the year a case was argued/decided and need to find it via the category. The {{Large category TOC}} helps you sort for specific articles, so it's not as bad as it seems. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- At least from my perspective, this topic seems like it should absolutely be diffused. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lethargilistic: I think there's a difference between being inflexible and guidance pages being inadequate. Inconsistency bothers me on some innate level and if there's rules, I want them to be able to easily follow them and to understand why they exist. Our guidance pages don't need to be perfect, but they need to be good enough. I don't think they're good enough. I make that clear in my comment at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#When to diffuse large categories?. I see stuff like Category:1991 births and it makes me think oh, when you have a large category, you can diffuse it by year. I see people in my watchlist diffusing categories all the time and come to the conclusion that oh, this is what people do when you have overcrowded categories. I can understand technical considerations applying, but I want guidance pages to say that. I want them to explain why Category:Rivers of Europe would be overcrowded if it wasn't a diffused category and why much larger non-diffusing categories are allowed to exist. It's not fair to expect people to just know this stuff. I'm not saying that you expect this (you were honestly very kind in coming here and saying that you think these subcategories have use). But that's genuinely what my experience in trying to understand categories feels like. There's not enough framework to know if you're making the right decision. To continue your metaphor, law works to some extent based on precedent. If you're trying to make a decision without knowing what those precedents even are, you're going to have a hard time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- For example, before you mentioned the maintenance reports, I had no idea why partially diffusing Category:2009 in United States case law (a much smaller category) into Category:United States Supreme Court cases in 2009 was an acceptable outcome while diffusing from the much larger Category:United States Supreme Court cases wasn't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Subcategorizing "YEAR in US case law" would actually have material benefits. The most obvious one to me is that precedent in the US system is hierarchical, so case law established in one court cannot necessarily be used as precedential in another court. Case law from a technically irrelevant jurisdiction might be used persuasively, but that's not what people usually mean when they talk about "what the case law says." There are also courts that do not issue precedential rulings at all. Failing to differentiate by court hides this and probably makes them all appear universal to the average reader. lethargilistic (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Toronto Wikipedia Day 2025 Reminder
[edit]Sun Jan 19: Toronto Wikipedia Day 2025 Reminder | |
---|---|
Hello! Thanks for signing up for Toronto Wikipedia Day 2025. This is a gentle reminder that the meetup is scheduled for this Sunday. Full details are on the sign-up page if you wish to refer to it again. The meetup will be casual, drop-in format and you are welcome to come & leave at any time to suit your schedule. We have planned different activities and discussion topics for the event. You are encouraged to bring a laptop or tablet if you wish to participate in editing activities or follow along. Please note that the room capacity is 50 individuals and we may arrange other alternative activities for individuals who are unable to enter the room while the room is full. If you can no longer attend this meeting, please locate your username and remove it from the list so that the organizers can better estimate Sunday's turnout. Thanks and I hope to see you on Sunday! |
- @OhanaUnited: I definitely plan to be there. I'm surprised at the sheer scale of newbies we have signing up this time, even if we've always had a higher newbie to experienced editor ratio. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know! I'm definitely feeling the "Ralph Wiggum's chuckle I am in danger meme" at the moment. We need to think about alternative activities for those who aren't able to get into the door. It's too bad that it's going to be snowing and raining tomorrow so we can't do outdoor photowalks. Any suggestions? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OhanaUnited: Maybe just an extended edit-a-thon? We might want to do something like help each new editor learn how to cite an unsourced statement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is difficult to show how it's done if they are outside the room and there's no projector. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OhanaUnited: I was thinking that if room capacity is reached, one of us experienced editors could hang out with the remaining newbies in the spacious lobby. I was thinking of it as a one-on-one thing, you don't nessecarily need a projector to do that. If it ends up coming to that, I volunteer as tribute. I suck at using projectors but I think I could guide people through editing on their devices. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is difficult to show how it's done if they are outside the room and there's no projector. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OhanaUnited: Maybe just an extended edit-a-thon? We might want to do something like help each new editor learn how to cite an unsourced statement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know! I'm definitely feeling the "Ralph Wiggum's chuckle I am in danger meme" at the moment. We need to think about alternative activities for those who aren't able to get into the door. It's too bad that it's going to be snowing and raining tomorrow so we can't do outdoor photowalks. Any suggestions? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)