User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Coffeeandcrumbs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Fannie Lou Hamer
D'ye think ye'd like to have a go at helping me renominate her? I'm worried that if my explanation didn't push it through the first time, it might not this time either. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, I will give it a go on Tuesday. Weekend is not a good time to start a nomination I have noticed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- No problem! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not on a schedule, but could you let me know when this is done? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, I will let you know. I first have to integrate her into 1964 Democratic National Convention#Mississippi controversy and add the photo there. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Any progress? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, I am sorry but coordinating WP:OTD has taken all my time. I don't think a nomination would be successful at this times without including the photo in 1964 Democratic National Convention#Mississippi controversy. I have not had time to do that. I am really sorry if I held you up. Perhaps you can ask WP:WOMEN to help fix the convention page because I believe most of the EV of the photo is in that article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Any progress? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, I will let you know. I first have to integrate her into 1964 Democratic National Convention#Mississippi controversy and add the photo there. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not on a schedule, but could you let me know when this is done? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- No problem! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 20:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
OTD July 18
Hey, I just wanted to point some issues with the July 18 update. Firstly, the 1949 event should have been left in; as a "significant" anniversary (multiples of 10 when <100, of 25 otherwise) it's supposed to get precedence. Next, there are too many 20th century and later events. So I probably would have put in 1290 or 1806, 1841, 1949, 1989, and 2012 (i.e., 2 repeats, 3 new). Lastly, and this one is my fault, Mandela already appears on a different day. Last year I had put him in for his 100th birthday, but he was TFA and I should have deleted that entry later, but I forgot. Other than that, you have been doing a great job with this. Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Howcheng, should I ignore the repetition of Nixon on July 24 and July 25 and include him in both? Kitchen Debate and Nixon Doctrine have their 60th and 50th anniversaries, respectively. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ugh, that's a tough one. Normally, no topic should get 2 days in a row, although it tends to happen for wars, so I usually let that slide if the two battles are several years apart, or if in the case of WW2 if it's say 75th anniversary for something in the Pacific and the next day it's something in Europe. Since this follows that same line of thinking, I think including both is fine. —howcheng {chat} 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I added a "When guidelines conflict" section to WP:SA. —howcheng {chat} 16:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Howcheng, could you add Winsor McCay, Gertie the Dinosaur, and Little Nemo (1911 film) to February 8 and April 8? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Done. —howcheng {chat} 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Howcheng, could you add Winsor McCay, Gertie the Dinosaur, and Little Nemo (1911 film) to February 8 and April 8? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I added a "When guidelines conflict" section to WP:SA. —howcheng {chat} 16:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ugh, that's a tough one. Normally, no topic should get 2 days in a row, although it tends to happen for wars, so I usually let that slide if the two battles are several years apart, or if in the case of WW2 if it's say 75th anniversary for something in the Pacific and the next day it's something in Europe. Since this follows that same line of thinking, I think including both is fine. —howcheng {chat} 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Mandy Moore (choreographer)
You were right! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I would like to explain nonetheless
InedibleHulk, I only changed your comment because it affected/changed how my comment appears.
My explanation of the problem in detail:
|
|---|
* User A comments here. *:User B comments here. **I commented here.
I prefer to put a bullet to avoid the impression that I also made the comment made by User B. But I also want to ensure that it is understood that my comment was directed at User A.
* User A comments here. *:User B comments here. :::You commented here. **I commented here.
* User A comments here. *:User B comments here. *::You commented here. **I commented here.
|
Your editcomment inadvertently changed my comment by just inserting your comment. It annoys me to see the two bullets in front of my comment which I was careful to avoid but appears because a comment that was inserted after me was careless. My edit did not change how your comment appears when rendered. But your edit changed how my comment appears. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for such a clear and well-formatted answer. Almost makes my initial concern seem like incoherent gibberish in comparison. I'll remember this lesson forever! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- I turned it into an essay: User:Coffeeandcrumbs/Hanging chads and double chads. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Holy crap, I'm inspiring. Way to go, buddy! I can't say I saw it coming, but never doubted you could do it. If you want to write me in as the Goofus in your cautionary tale, I'd be honoured now that the terrible shame of it all has eased off a bit. But if you want to keep it a composite careless jackass, I'll understand. Other unfortunate double chadders still edit among us, and if they think you mean them, they'll take you more seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, no need to single you out. It is too common of an occurrence. I have seen some of the oldest users on en.wiki doing it and
facepalm . I would rather link to it in my edit summaries when making a correction so it is productive rather than accusatory or used to ridicule. Now that you know how it works, I guarantee you are going to start seeing it everywhere. I am sorry (not sorry) to make you one of "us" (probably just me) that see it everywhere and can't help being annoyed and frustrated. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'll probably notice it now, and will try my damnedest to not relapse, but won't shoulder nearly the burden you must, nor take up the crown of thorns. I have my own undying peeves to preoccupy me. Capitalized common nouns, redundant subheadings, ampersands, alleged murders, "also", "would", "however"...hell, I tell you! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, no need to single you out. It is too common of an occurrence. I have seen some of the oldest users on en.wiki doing it and
- Holy crap, I'm inspiring. Way to go, buddy! I can't say I saw it coming, but never doubted you could do it. If you want to write me in as the Goofus in your cautionary tale, I'd be honoured now that the terrible shame of it all has eased off a bit. But if you want to keep it a composite careless jackass, I'll understand. Other unfortunate double chadders still edit among us, and if they think you mean them, they'll take you more seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- I turned it into an essay: User:Coffeeandcrumbs/Hanging chads and double chads. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Wild Bill Hickok
Hi there, when you have a moment would you take a look at your recent edit at Wild Bill Hickok? Looks like a "citation within a citation" issue that I don't know how to fix (and wasn't 100% sure what was intended). It's at the end of the "McCanles shooting" section. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Jessicapierce, will do. Sorry about that. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Toddst1, that is the greatest news I have heard on en.wiki in long time. Happy to provide sources! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yup, those pages are a mess. Several of us are combing through them one-by-one. Toddst1 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Concerning 2019 El Paso shooting
The source did state what I put, it was in the video. I left a message on the talk page. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm headed off to bed now ... let's talk about it in the morning. I've never heard someone say that 933 characters plus an image isn't long enough for the Main Page. Even if we could find consensus for that, it would be difficult to get every blurb between 950 or 975 and 1025 characters, while meeting the various constraints. There are other issues to tackle, too. All of the FA coords (including me) are happy to see people participating and having fun, so whenever someone makes an unexpected edit to a blurb, I strongly consider doing nothing as the first option ... but I'm not sure that's the best option here. Anyway, more tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Dank, yes let's discuss tomorrow. But perhaps in a more public venue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. From the edit summary, I'm assuming that the issue is the length of the blurb, so I'll ask about that at WT:ERRORS, but feel free to add other issues if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the only issue. I think Talk:Main Page is the best venue for this discussion. Just so you are aware of scope of the issue and all the significant changes that are relevant:
- ITN has increased the number of recent deaths to 6 people which bleeds into a second line for most screen sizes
- DYK has gotten a lot better at writing shorter blurbs and even considered going to 9 hooks because of consistent Main Page imbalance.
- OTD has been often forced to reduce to 4 blurbs (perhaps limiting OTD to only 4 maybe the solution)
- Looking through the Wikipedia:Main Page history, Main Page imbalance is a constant problem, often solved by adding an old DYK hook to restore balance day of. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I didn't see this, I already posted to WT:ERRORS with a pointer from WT:TFA ... can you add a pointer from Talk:Main Page? If it's a persistent problem because of changing editing patterns, then adjusting the Main Page column width would probably make sense, but let's see what people say. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will copy my comments there. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I didn't see this, I already posted to WT:ERRORS with a pointer from WT:TFA ... can you add a pointer from Talk:Main Page? If it's a persistent problem because of changing editing patterns, then adjusting the Main Page column width would probably make sense, but let's see what people say. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the only issue. I think Talk:Main Page is the best venue for this discussion. Just so you are aware of scope of the issue and all the significant changes that are relevant:
- Sure. From the edit summary, I'm assuming that the issue is the length of the blurb, so I'll ask about that at WT:ERRORS, but feel free to add other issues if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid this date format change to Tigran Petrosian was incorrect since MOS:TIES only applies to a strong national tie to an English-speaking nation. You can't use it to justify a date format change for a biography of a Soviet chess player. MOS:RETAIN is the applicable standard. Quale (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Quale: Feel free to revert. I did not think anyone would object. I generally believe the Soviet Union uses date first but I do not have sources to believe that wholeheartedly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did revert, but it's important that you not make any similar date changes to articles lacking strong national ties to an English-speaking nation. MOS:RETAIN prohibits the edit you made, whether or not you think anyone will mind. Also not relevant are date formats used in the Soviet Union, Armenia or Russia since they are not English-speaking nations. Quale (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't be a dick.Technically, you are the one who violated MOS:DATERET.[1] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did revert, but it's important that you not make any similar date changes to articles lacking strong national ties to an English-speaking nation. MOS:RETAIN prohibits the edit you made, whether or not you think anyone will mind. Also not relevant are date formats used in the Soviet Union, Armenia or Russia since they are not English-speaking nations. Quale (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hermaphrodite (Nadar) image
D'ye think it's worth just shoving it into tomorrow's PotD? It's not like anyone's bothered to set up an image for that day. On the other hand, it might encourage some idiot to just pull it immediately. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 08:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Better to let it sit where it is at Template:POTD/2020-03-28 and let people get used to the idea slowly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Princess Christina of the Netherlands
Thanks for your kind feedback on improving Princess Christina of the Netherlands. Based on your suggestions. I have further improved the article. Appreciate if you can take another look. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 06:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to New Page Patrol!
 |
| Welcome, Coffeeandcrumbs to the New Page Patrol team.
Congratulations on receiving the New Page Patrol user permission and on becoming a part of the patroller community. Our mission is to accurately, rather than quickly, handle the new articles which are created. As you begin to patrol it's natural to have lots of questions. Feel free to ask on my talk page or ask for thoughts in the New Page Patroller IRC channel #wikimedia-npp connect or on our Discord server (invite link). We also regularly discuss issues and topics surrounding New Page Patrolling at the NPP discussion page and I would invite you to join us there. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. I hope you find NPP as rewarding as I do and, again, welcome to the community. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
September 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
We choose to go to the Moon
An editor is removing the sources on the article and claiming that the article is unsourced. Your help is requested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
comment at blp
If you have not yet already emailed the oversight team with the article titles, email them to me. I'm an oversighter. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't suppose you could clarify which one(s) you support? Cheers! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 15:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, sorry. Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- No worries! Sorry if I was being vague there, but I never want to manipulate a vote, so I always try not to say too much. By the way, I'm stealing that Women's March on Versailles illustration from the top of your page for my next illustration. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, you didn't influence my vote. I was actually waiting for the edges to be cleaned before voting. I didn't think my vote was ambiguous. A POTD of Women's March on Versailles would be great for the 230th anniversary on October 5. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- No worries! Sorry if I was being vague there, but I never want to manipulate a vote, so I always try not to say too much. By the way, I'm stealing that Women's March on Versailles illustration from the top of your page for my next illustration. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Everything's Coming up Roses
Hi, you just moved these pages after I did so and I think you just messed it all up. I'm not sure how to resolve it if undoing all your moves or moving it back will fix it but right now it's all screwed up. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph:, we were making the move at the same time. I can fix or you can. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll fix, I can use the practice, and I see you just installed the page swap script so that should make your life easier. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, sounds good. Yeah, the script does seem like the best way to do a swap. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does all three steps of the swap in one move, you just have to edit the redirect at the end, so it saves a lot of time. OK, I think we're good with the move. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, the talk page got separated, so I moved it separately to fix the last remaining issue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. That was weird, and there should be a mechanism at TRM similarly to how RM or RFC's are closed but I guess it's a one in a million that these things happen. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, the talk page got separated, so I moved it separately to fix the last remaining issue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does all three steps of the swap in one move, you just have to edit the redirect at the end, so it saves a lot of time. OK, I think we're good with the move. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, sounds good. Yeah, the script does seem like the best way to do a swap. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll fix, I can use the practice, and I see you just installed the page swap script so that should make your life easier. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Coffeeandcrumbs,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Very lengthy links in edit summaries
Please avoid these as they skew the display margins. El_C 14:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- El_C What exactly is the harm in that? I have seen you remove them before I do not understand what is so wrong with them. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know if I can explain this any more clearly. Do you not use a watchlist? El_C 14:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- El_C I see the issue on smaller screens. It is strange looking on smaller screens but not unusable. It looks fine on my big screen. BTW, I use Chrome Watchlist. I highly recommend it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Same here, on both large screen-size and Chrome watchlist counts. But it messes with width margins nonetheless, so it's probably best to avoid. El_C 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- FYI, It severely distorts the width on smaller displays, like my ipad. Essentially makes the watchlist unusable. This was because of the protection log on your move of Louis XVIII---- Work permit (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will try my best to avoid this. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- And thank you very much for all the work you do.---- Work permit (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will try my best to avoid this. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- El_C I see the issue on smaller screens. It is strange looking on smaller screens but not unusable. It looks fine on my big screen. BTW, I use Chrome Watchlist. I highly recommend it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know if I can explain this any more clearly. Do you not use a watchlist? El_C 14:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Harald III
Re this edit, I think we need to have both Harald and Tostin bold, but the latter's article is full of CN tags. From my reading of the Stamford Bridge article, it seems that both of their deaths were significant to the Vikings being routed. —howcheng {chat} 16:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Howcheng, agreed. I put it back in inelgible. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no way your page move could be considered not controversial. Please undo it and start an RM. US settlement articles are titled "City, State" with only 20 specific exceptions (based on the AP stylebook). Thanks. 21:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC) oops John from Idegon (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- John from Idegon, done. Is that written out in a policy anywhere? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there is an actual policy, more an essay on how move discussions go. WP:COMMACONVENTION? WP:USCITY may speak or link to it, as may WP:PLACENAME John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, here: WP:USPLACE. John from Idegon (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- John from Idegon, Thanks. I think it is a bad policy but not worth challenging. I appreciate you coming to me directly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you dig a bit you'll see that has been contentious for a long time, earning at least one editor a topic ban from the subject. The general thought is that having a set system for naming saves argument. To each his own. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- John from Idegon, Thanks. I think it is a bad policy but not worth challenging. I appreciate you coming to me directly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, here: WP:USPLACE. John from Idegon (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there is an actual policy, more an essay on how move discussions go. WP:COMMACONVENTION? WP:USCITY may speak or link to it, as may WP:PLACENAME John from Idegon (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
October Events from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thanks for the image
I was having trouble loading one for Girl on the Third Floor. I see you nailed it. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Jack Sebastian, no problem. I have gotten pretty good at doing those. If you ever need help in the future, don't hesitate to ask. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will probably look you up when I start a new article. Maybe I will figure out, in consultation with you, what I did wrong before.
- Good talk. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
John Witherspoon (actor)
@DBigXray: – John Witherspoon (actor) is exactly the type of article I like to work on. If you start from the bottom (Filmography), I can start from the top and add sources. We can get this posted I think. It will take a lot of work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for lending a helping hand. Indeed it is hard for one editor to get it ready in a short time. Your plan sounds good. Also pinging User:Fylindfotberserk to help if he finds it interesting to contribute. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Johndavies837, User:Fylindfotberserk And Coffee, What do you guys think about the prospects of this article for ITN/c. Can we make it ? If it is feasible we all can give a final push to add the sources or else move on to other articles. IMHO the filmography might need to be WP:CFORKed into a separate article.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:Johndavies837, User:Fylindfotberserk I went in and enriched the filmography with sources. IMHO the article is in much better shape. lets give it another 12-15 hours for improvement after which unsourced content should be moved to talk page until a reliable source is found for it. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, I kept eyeing the forehead, and decided to redo it a little bit. There's some damage to it that I rightfully removed, but it lost a little too much grain, I think, in the process, so I grabbed that bit of the original, pasted it in, and reworked. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7% of all FPs 05:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kosovo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kosovo. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Leonov edits
If you get time could you copy edit my additions to Leonov's article from today? Feeling a bit tired, not my best writing, but trying to make progress on the article. Kees08 (Talk) 07:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Kees08, you got it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
"Fixing" date formats in CS1
I don't know if you're aware that CS1 now renders dates in the format specified by {{use mdy dates}} et al, which means edits like this are largely a waste of your time, system resources, and a bit of file space. They have no effect on the rendered article if it contains {{use mdy dates}}, and few editors care much about how dates are coded in the wikitext. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss, thank you. I am aware and only do them along with other edits. Getting them out of the way allows me to see if there are MOS:DATE issues in the prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was not aware, and thought I had a genius idea to implement this but decided not to bring it up because I thought it would be too complicated. Glad someone was way ahead of me! Kees08 (Talk) 04:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if Ohconfucius would consider changing his user script to ignore CS1. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- If they did, how would you get them out of the way allowing you to see if there are MOS:DATE issues in the prose? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss:, I wouldn't need to. When I said get them out of the way, I meant for the next time I run the script. For example, 2019 Hong Kong protests had MOS:DATE issues but they are hard to notice in preview mode because all the CS1 dates are also triggering the script to act. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is an issue that I have been contemplating for a few months now. I have not arrived at a conclusion as to modifying the script to ignore
|date=within reference sections. I had disabled the regexes following an enquiry, but found on prolonged use that it threw up false negatives in other templates where the|date=is used. Yes, I am aware that it may be seen to be an unconsequential edit when these citation dates are changed (when it has no effect on the rendered output. But for the moment, it seems to be more complicated for me to modify the regexes when compared to the benefits. Furthermore, some editors have expressed puzzlement when they see different date formats used in edit mode, making them think wrongly that the script wasn't working, so I'm inclined to let it run a while longer. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)- Ohconfucius, if you ever do modify the regexes, you should also take a look at why it removes "the" from phrases like "the 18 October protest caused....". It is good to change "... on the 15th of October" to "on 15 October" but it should ignore instances when dates are used as modifiers like in the former. It should only be triggered when "the" is followed by 1st, 2nd, 3'rd, 4th, etc. No rush, of course. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for that suggestion. I've been trying to identify differences in strings that ought to change and those that ought to stay the same. Yes, the regex was written to remove archaic ordinal formats such as "... on the 15th of October", and there are indeed false positives. I'll look at the regexes in light of what you propose. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius, if you ever do modify the regexes, you should also take a look at why it removes "the" from phrases like "the 18 October protest caused....". It is good to change "... on the 15th of October" to "on 15 October" but it should ignore instances when dates are used as modifiers like in the former. It should only be triggered when "the" is followed by 1st, 2nd, 3'rd, 4th, etc. No rush, of course. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is an issue that I have been contemplating for a few months now. I have not arrived at a conclusion as to modifying the script to ignore
- @Mandruss:, I wouldn't need to. When I said get them out of the way, I meant for the next time I run the script. For example, 2019 Hong Kong protests had MOS:DATE issues but they are hard to notice in preview mode because all the CS1 dates are also triggering the script to act. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- If they did, how would you get them out of the way allowing you to see if there are MOS:DATE issues in the prose? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if Ohconfucius would consider changing his user script to ignore CS1. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was not aware, and thought I had a genius idea to implement this but decided not to bring it up because I thought it would be too complicated. Glad someone was way ahead of me! Kees08 (Talk) 04:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This had been bothering me because I thought I had edited articles that contained both the use mdy dates template and varying dates. I realize now when you edit just a section, without the template, since the template is not there the dates will not be made consistent. It is obvious now that I realize it, but in case anyone else thought they were going crazy... Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
In regard to an abella danger edit or deletion I think you did.
I think you edited out my references to Elite Daily and International Business Times, or not? I highlighted those two news articles since they are somewhat prominent news organizations. To give her credibility in the beginning. Although I understand why it may not be needed now, I'm not sure why it would be deleted? thank you.Scenicview1 (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Scenicview1
- @Scenicview1: that was not me. What you are referring to was done in this edit. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please fix your signature. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, my perfectionism got to me, and I redid Alt 1 a bit, because that giant hat really seemed to need a bit more visual-counterbalance at the bottom of the picture. I'm sorry for doing this late in voting, I just wanted to make sure that the image promoted is the best I can do, and the new crop, I think, is way better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 22:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
November 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hey, didn't think to ping you until I had saved the message, and know pinging can be really... questionable when you don't do it in the first draft of a message, so just letting you know I've replied to you there. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 10:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Boo! 
Hello Coffeeandcrumbs:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– DBigXrayᗙ 15:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is 
Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:
Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points
All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
- Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.- Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Coffeeandcrumbs,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 806 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Márta Kurtág
Thank you for improving Márta Kurtág! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Borman TFA
I think you can move your request from the 'in the general future' page to the December page, if you want. Kees08 (Talk) 22:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Ways to improve Akram al-Ajouri
Hello, Coffeeandcrumbs,
Thank you for creating Akram al-Ajouri.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Seems to only be notable in reliable sources for not having been killed in an airstrike. WP:BLP1E
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Pmaccabe}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Phil (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of George P. Kent
Hello! Your submission of George P. Kent at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yoninah, fixed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Fred Rogers
Hello! Your submission of Fred Rogers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, I had to change to Chrome brower to post this here. All that stuff you have at the top of your talk page prevents me from clicking on your talk page in Firefox. It's that way with everybody who has those whatever they are at the top of their user pages. Just renders Firefox useless. — Maile (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Maile66: I have added a button for leaving me a message. Does that function enough for leaving me a message? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Aaron Hernandez
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aaron Hernandez. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Photo Removal Saugus High School shooting
[[File:Saugus_High_School_Shooting_Location.png|thumb|right]] The above photo was removed as per WP:BRD based on a claim it is not fair use because a free image is available.
The photo is a picture of the event which is the subject of the article in question. Contexual significance? It depicts an active crime scene which is central to the subject of the article and not just a photo of a building. Free equivalent available? Not without a time machine. The photo clearly states that is depicts abandoned backpacks and is an active crime scene. The photo even states what it contains. So I object to the claim it is not fair use. Show me a free equivalent of the active crime scene I can upload and use if there is a free replacement.
Can you please nominate the image at Files for discussion if you really don't think it's fair use so other editors can review it and make a determination whether this is legit fair use or not. Stating its not fair use in a terse edit summary indicates that the image be reviewed through that process, and if it's not fair use, delete it. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
FAC may interest you
Hi coffeeandcrumbs, given your involvement with the FAC nomination of Charles H. Stonestreet, I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the FAC of David H. Buel, another jesuit of Georgetown University. The nomination discussion found here. Ergo Sum 05:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
December events with WIR
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Coffeeandcrumbs, it looks like there was an attempt to ping you from this nomination you have been reviewing, but as it wasn't signed, the ping wouldn't have gone through. Please stop by when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I appreciate the ping. I am still reviewing and promise not to abandon this one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Apollo 13 anniversary
The 50th for Apollo 13 is coming up, Wehwalt and I have the Apollo 13 anniversary pretty well covered (currently at FAC), but if you or Hawkeye7 would have time for Fred Haise, Jim Lovell, Ken Mattingly, Jack Swigert, or even Charles Duke (due to being the source of the measles), help would be greatly appreciated since their pageviews will skyrocket during the anniversary and overall the articles are in pretty poor shape. B-class would be a bare minimum (some are rated B but clearly are not). I doubt I will have time for them all. Please contribute to the FAC if you have time as well, though you may want to wait until this round of edits is over. Any other hints on who might be interested in helping can be pinged here. Kees08 (Talk) 14:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I will take Charlie Duke. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I will take Ken Mattingly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Roger to both. I have been working on Lovell and started Haise, may make small edits to the other articles like cross-sourcing as needed. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 22:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have started on Charlie Duke. You were right about it being in poor shape; most of it was unreferenced. A lot more work than I first thought. I am working through it, and hope to get it GA-worthy in the next week or so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah all of the articles involved in the anniversary, including Apollo 13, were in pretty bad shape at the start of this. Working the Apollo 13 FAC with Wehwalt who is leading the charge and doing the bulk of the work, and trying to get Lovell's article going on the side. Kees08 (Talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll look at Swigert but it may take me a couple of weeks to get started.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah all of the articles involved in the anniversary, including Apollo 13, were in pretty bad shape at the start of this. Working the Apollo 13 FAC with Wehwalt who is leading the charge and doing the bulk of the work, and trying to get Lovell's article going on the side. Kees08 (Talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have started on Charlie Duke. You were right about it being in poor shape; most of it was unreferenced. A lot more work than I first thought. I am working through it, and hope to get it GA-worthy in the next week or so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Did you see how many pageviews that PotD got? Do we keep track of that anywhere? It's pretty cool to see a spike like that. --valereee (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, isn't it fun!?! I am always shocked how easily that section gets views. A really nice portrait sometimes gets 60k+. But no, we don't collect the stats and I think I like it that way. I like DYKSTATS but I don't think we should do that for the other sections. But, as with all things, I can be convinced. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- It was more just curiosity about how many views a typical PotD gets, rather than some sort of competitive thing like with DYK stats. I'd more like to see a graph of PotD over time, if you see what I mean. --valereee (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I bet we could design a WP:QUARRY to do that. We should ask DannyS712 --> Is there a way to query the top-100 highest viewed POTD articles? We could take the article titles and dates of appearance from the POTD templates themselves: Template:POTD/2019-11-24. Danny, is this possible? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: don't think pageviews can be quarried that easily DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I bet we could design a WP:QUARRY to do that. We should ask DannyS712 --> Is there a way to query the top-100 highest viewed POTD articles? We could take the article titles and dates of appearance from the POTD templates themselves: Template:POTD/2019-11-24. Danny, is this possible? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- It was more just curiosity about how many views a typical PotD gets, rather than some sort of competitive thing like with DYK stats. I'd more like to see a graph of PotD over time, if you see what I mean. --valereee (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Jeez, I told someone today that there was as much behind the scenes on WP as there is in the front of house, and every day someone shows me a new secret passageway that makes me wonder if the back of house is actually bigger. --valereee (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Pics for FPC
_of_Johanes_Bender.jpg)
I assume there's a reason beyond size that this has never been a featured picture --valereee (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, We need to find a version without a circle. No reason this would not sail through a nomination. A larger file would have a better chance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't so far been able to find a version without the circle, though of course it has to be out there somewhere. A reverse image search didn't bring it up; too many similar photographs, I think. However, I just uploaded this, which I found at Winterthur Museum...would it be a candidate? I was thinking it might be a better main image for Fraktur (folk art) than the smaller file that's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, what do you think of the folk art as an FP nomination. Should we remove the frame? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't so far been able to find a version without the circle, though of course it has to be out there somewhere. A reverse image search didn't bring it up; too many similar photographs, I think. However, I just uploaded this, which I found at Winterthur Museum...would it be a candidate? I was thinking it might be a better main image for Fraktur (folk art) than the smaller file that's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Laura Cooper
Hello! Your submission of Laura Cooper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Akram al-Ajouri for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akram al-Ajouri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akram al-Ajouri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Phil (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Million Award
Hi. I have a question. The article Tove Lo received 1.175.099 views during 2016. Is it eligible for a Million Award? Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Paparazzzi, I usually use a year close to the time it was promoted. Since it was promoted in 2018, I am not comfortable using pageviews from two years before. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It puzzles me that you apparently don't exist
Hi! Please understand that this is not a shot or a criticism, but a genuine question regarding what is to me a mystery. Just today, you've done quite a bit of work on one of my favorite articles here, the one on the Parker Solar Probe. But your own user page has a redlink, and apparently doesn't exist. Talk page, yes; contributions page, yes--but no user page. How does someont who doesn't exist manage to do so much thoughtful editing? Uporządnicki (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- AzseicsoK, I take it as a compliment. In a way, that is exactly why I deleted my user page. I want to encourage the thinking that good contributions can come from users with redlinks in the history page of articles. A subtle way to encourage people to assume good faith when they see a new user without a user page. If editors know that some WikiDragon are red, they are less likely to dismiss an edit from a redlink editor. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Photo edit
I tried doing a light edit of File:Russian ISS Flight Control Room.jpg, what are your thoughts on it? Kees08 (Talk) 15:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kees08, it looks good but I think there is a new Russian ISS Flight Control Room.[2] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Clarification
I'm puzzled! On the ERRORS page you wrote, in connection with the marsh fritillary POD, "I have made this edit on the unprotected version. We need an admin to sync." Could you explain what "sync" means, but my question really is, if an admin is needed to perform a sync, how did this edit come about seeing that the AnomieBOT had protected the template and afterwards Ravenpuff, who is not an admin, seems to have edited it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, I am glad to explain below in detail. But can you first make the same edit I made to the protected page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is how the schedule of how POTD is created:
- You helped create Template:POTD/2019-12-17.
- 26 hours before it goes on the main page (at 22:00 UTC on December 15), AnomieBOT will create the protected version at Template:POTD protected/2019-12-17
- At this point, even though it is called "protected", any one edit the template. AnomiBOT does not protect the page. It only creates. Any one can create the page.
- 2 hours later (at 00:00 UTC on December 16), the protected version becomes transcluded into Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow
- Since Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow is cascade protected, Template:POTD protected/2019-12-17 automatically becomes protected as well.
- Ravenpuff knows this and they smartly snuck in 47 minutes before it became protected and copy-edited the original and also synced the protected version.
- Basically, the protected version is created 26 hours before and is protected 24 hours before it reaches the Main Page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you click here, there is an edit notice highlighted in red that explains how to create protected pages. You can go ahead and create the protected page as practice (you won't break anything). It will help you understand how this whole thing works. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, your explanation is most helpful and explains what was puzzling me. I have created the protected template for the 2019-12-17 picture as you suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, notice I was able to edit it and sync to the unprotected page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I get it. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, notice I was able to edit it and sync to the unprotected page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, your explanation is most helpful and explains what was puzzling me. I have created the protected template for the 2019-12-17 picture as you suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you click here, there is an edit notice highlighted in red that explains how to create protected pages. You can go ahead and create the protected page as practice (you won't break anything). It will help you understand how this whole thing works. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is how the schedule of how POTD is created:
Command Module Columbia
There's a name change request going on at the page. Thanks for creating it, and page creators should probably be automatically alerted about requested moves. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, thank you for the ping. I am aware of the discussion and will vote. I am trying to be strategic about this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC).
- Okay. The exchange got me thinking though if a bot addition could notify page creators of things like requested moves, deletion requests, redirects, etc. I'd think that should be automatic, not everyone has everything on their watchlist. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, interesting idea. I did not think of people that have created so many articles that they removed some from their watchlist. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. The exchange got me thinking though if a bot addition could notify page creators of things like requested moves, deletion requests, redirects, etc. I'd think that should be automatic, not everyone has everything on their watchlist. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed
Hello, Coffeeandcrumbs
Thank you for creating Impeachment of Donald Trump.
User:Prof tpms, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good article
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Prof tpms}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Prof TPMS (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Coffeeandcrumbs: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
January 2020 at Women in Red
|
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはCoffeeandcrumbsたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
May interest you
Hi Coffeeandcrumbs, given your FAC review of David Hillhouse Buel (priest), I thought you might be interested to know that I've nominated Samuel Mulledy, another Jesuit and president of Georgetown University for FAC (link). If you're so inclined, your comments would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 03:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
December
 | |
| missing Brian ... |
I wonder if you might look at WP:ITNN where RD after RD is nominated, with almost no comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, let's take a break from The Times to help ITN/C. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Start from the oldest nomination and work up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Almost as soon as Schreier (finally) made it to the Main page, Harry Kupfer died. No words. I am sooooo glad we just updated his article while he was still alive. With more support and a brave admin, this could go up while really "recent"! - For turn to 2020 see my talk, - dark blue as DYK aptly prescribes, but click through to images music calendar if you like! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Should give you January, but little time ;) - Could check out my ITNN nom for Gudrun Pausewang, please, and perhaps pass credits for Franz Mazura? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Question
Why haven't you done this? --valereee (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, I'm working up the courage. I need more experience at AfD. Definitely going to pull the trigger sometime in the next 6 months. I recently got OTRS access. It is so fascinating. As soon as I get comfortable with OTRS and get more familiar with AfD, I will have the self-esteem for RfA. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, to me personally, requiring AfD experience just seems so random. It's just one of dozens if not hundreds of places we need admin attention. I know some people do want to see that, but I find it puzzling. I need to go ask one of those people why. Much more important to me is temperament (check), willingness to help in underserved areas (check), and willingness to help other editors become better editors (double-check).
You should go start a WP:ORCP.NM, just saw recent advice from someone whose opinion I respect saying do NOT do this lol --valereee (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, to me personally, requiring AfD experience just seems so random. It's just one of dozens if not hundreds of places we need admin attention. I know some people do want to see that, but I find it puzzling. I need to go ask one of those people why. Much more important to me is temperament (check), willingness to help in underserved areas (check), and willingness to help other editors become better editors (double-check).
I'm at LGBT History Month and wondering if it's fixable. It clearly started out as an article about the UK event, and then there was an attempt to globalize it, and while I've been able to remove the major tags, the article is so all over the place that I'm not sure it could work as an OTD for Feb 1 as is. What do you think? --valereee (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee, I think you should focus on sourcing for now. Style, and organization are a secondary concern for me. As long as everything is sourced, I am personally willing to forgive these issues.
- However, I think that Canada not having a section is unforgivable since it is mentioned in the infobox and lead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
policy workshop
Hey, C&C! I surprisingly and unfortunately didn't get much input at WikiProject BLM, but I've worked this up and am thinking of worskshopping it. Would you take a look?
I’ve noticed deaths of Black people by police action/in police custody attract large numbers of new editors to an article, often there with an agenda. Please understand I am not accusing any experienced editors as such articles of intentional bias. But based on the categories (it's been changing in recent weeks as this issue has been discussed in various places, so isn't as compelling as it once was, but we still need to fix it):
Category:Black people shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States
Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States
…it appears we may be more likely to, for example, title an article Shooting of rather than Killing of/Homicide of if the victim is Black. I think this is a bad look, and I think in the very narrow case of deaths in police custody/by police action, we need policy to prevent that from happening.
I’d like to workshop the following:
- “Death of” for people who have died of whatever cause while in police custody/while interacting with police, when cause of death hasn’t been ruled on by whatever local body is authorized to make a ruling (or if it’s been ruled accidental.)
- “Homicide of” (or “Suicide of”) for such deaths that have been ruled on by whatever local authority makes that ruling, but the death hasn’t been ruled by a court action as a murder. Manslaughter convictions would remain at this title. (I believe “Homicide of” is more neutral than “Killing of.” In some dictionaries, “Killing of” is defined as an intentional killing. This is a violation of WP:COMMONTERM, but I believe it's justified IAR because we need to prevent police-related deaths of Blacks from being titled differently from deaths of Whites.)
- “Murder of” for such deaths if there's a murder conviction. —valereee (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I think you conflate the dictionary definition of "intent" with the criminal definition of "intent". A dictionary definition of intent does not mean the perpetrator intended to commit a crime, only that they intended to cause the death of. Whether that killing was justified or not, or criminal or not, does not factor into the dictionary definition.
- Police, whenever they shoot a suspect, intend to kill. This is established in practice, policy and training. A police officer is required by training and policy not to shoot to wound.
- Criminal intent requires a knowledge and understanding that the act is criminal. When dictionaries define killing as causing the death of a person deliberately or intentionally, they do not mean to say with criminal intent. They just mean it was not accidental.
I would oppose this proposal because "homicide" is not a common term and in most cases the have not been found guilty of homicide.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it's probably a pipe dream, then. NM. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, sorry, I think I shot you down too quickly. There is no harm in discussing it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm trying to find a place where, right now, we can find something that is possible. If we insist that it be everything we ever wanted, there'll be pushback. Let's get what is possible. I think "Homicide of" is possible. It's possible that in the future, policy for "Killing of" is possible. I considered using 'Either "Killing of" or "Homicide of"' but again, that puts it into human judgement, and in this specific narrow case, I don't think we should leave it to judgement at each article. It's too open to the feeling of false consensus in the case of articles that get large numbers of new editors there to defend the police. I think some very formal "Homicide of" isn't as arguable with. I don't really care whether it's at Killing of or Homicide of. I don't think that's really important. I just want it to be the same for both Blacks and Whites. That's my feeling. —valereee (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, I will not stand in the way. It is certainly an improvement. I do fear people will object to the use of a legal term but, who knows, I may be wrong.
- On second thought, homicide itself is not illegal by definition. It is only homicide without justification that is illegal. Self-defense and legal executions for example are homicides. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, this means the only logical argument against "Homicide of ..." is that homicide is not a common term. That does not seem like a huge impediment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- My feeling is that we can set up redirects for "Killing of" or "Shooting of" or whatever the common terms are. This is something that simply needs to prevent systemic bias. It may not be perfect, but it may be a case of IAR w/re commonterm. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think it's a bit of an impediment, honestly. "Homicide of" is a very unusual phrase to use, indeed the word "Homicide" is as well. It just doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think it's natural to many. People would probably argue it's very rarely going to fit the bill as the COMMONNAME for any such killing. "Killing of" is likely to be hearty debate I suppose but maybe, after recent articles and lengthy discussions, it could be more acceptable? It'd definitely be my preference. Someone might want to do some data collection, numerically, how many articles we have that start with each prefix? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, Quarry. 1,475 starting with Murder of, 260 with killing, 1,471 with death, 9 with homicide, 260 for shooting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, I truly could not care less which we settle on as long as we settle on one phrase rather than using one phrase more often for Blacks and one more often for Whites. All I want is for us to find one that we can get agreement on. For purposes of reader convenience we can use redirects. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe the first thing we should ask at an RfC is "Should we ensure deaths of Blacks in police encounters/custody aren't titled differently than those of whites? Yes or No?"
- And then go from there to find the actual best solution? —valereee (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Of course, and I agree with you both (I saw C&C's recent RM a few days back), this is indeed an issue. I just mean that I don't feel consensus will agree to have the primary title as such an unusual one, by standardising 'homicide', note we only have 9 such articles currently. If 'killing' is a pipe dream, I feel like homicide would be worse. Btw RfC should probably make clear that any outcome won't apply where a specific event has had significant media coverage and been given a particular COMMONNAME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, hm, that's an interesting point. At what point is an event so big that it would overrule this? —valereee (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Death of Adolf Hilter. See ngram. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure. C&C's is a really good example. I don't think the line could be codified and it'd probably be down to local consensus to have a hearty debate on it, I guess. I don't think it'd be a big issue, though, the majority of killing articles in that category aren't that popular so I don't think they have a particular common name, and I doubt anyone would care enough to try mass-make the argument.On the note of common term again, Google Trends, Ngrams. It's kinda telling, honestly. I think even I'd oppose homicide on the basis of it being too obscure of a term. I know these results aren't limited to killings/deaths, but shows general term prevalence + to nail the point: when was the last time RS said "Jane Doe was homicided", or you Googled for someone's homicide, rather than their death or killing? It'd constantly create friction for recent events and the Google banner predictions thing on search when they occasionally decide to diverge from the Wiki title (eg what happened to Kenosha riot when we were busy playing RM ping-pong, it looked totally silly, though I think this case was maybe a cache error). By the way, slight error in my Quarry above, I forgot to filter out redirects. Updated quarry - situation is more dire than I thought - we have just one non-redirect article with "Homicide of". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- lol on was homicided :D —valereee (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I made myself chuckle more than a few times yesterday. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- lol on was homicided :D —valereee (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Is there any real evidence that there are significant differences between Wikipedia article titles depending on whether a person who died in an incident was Black or not? When I asked for such evidence at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn (11 days ago), I received no reply. If anything, what I seem to notice is outraged people requesting that articles about recent incidents in which black people died should use "Killing of", but otherwise no clear difference. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Intersectionality. Segregation by any other name is still segregation. While the outward facing rationale maybe that it is because these are shootings, we know that the real reason has nothing to do with the manner of death. The real reason is, most certainly, because they were shot by a police officer. Police officers in fact shoot and kill more black people that white people. The killing is also more likely to be notable. Whatever the reasoning, articles about the killing of a black person is more likely not to be titled as such.
- Even if it is not a race-based bias, it is a pro-police bias. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so sure of that either, and "Shooting of" does not necessarily imply that the shooter was a police officer. If there is a statistical difference depending on whether police were involved or not, that may be just an ease-of-finding bias. A while ago I learned during some RM discussion that there was a convention of ordinarily using "Shooting of" for articles about shootings, and IIRC, there was a reference to looking in categories to find such articles. To check the convention and look for other outliers, I looked in places like Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Australia, etc. Articles outside of those categories are harder to find. I don't think I'm the only person who has used categories to identify and reinforce naming consistency, and I don't think I'm biased in favor of police. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, no, no. You misunderstand me. I am NOT saying you are biased. You are just following the consistency already established. The problem is the naming system is biased. The consistency was developed piece by piece without considering the outcome. How the subject is treated as a whole.
- Re: "
"Shooting of" does not necessarily imply that the shooter was a police officer
" ... but it does in fact if not in principle. Look through the articles in Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state, the majority of the "Shooting of ..." articles are about a police killing of a black man. Almost all are about a police officer killing a person. I am not saying it is racism. I am saying it is an inherent bias. It may not be intentional, but the end result is a POV favoring the police. An over-cautiousness, to the point of not even acknowledging the person was killed. A self-censorship to the point that even the mere possibility of implying guilt (which I do not think is really implied in killing of) leads us to choose a euphemistic title for the articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)- Let me try to explain this another way, consider why Killing of Harambe has never been nominated to be moved to "Shooting of ..."
- Or why do we not have a problem with Killing of Cecil the lion. The lion's killing was legal and sanctioned. Yes, he was shot with an arrow. But if "Killing of ..." implied criminal intent, then why is this article not named Death of Cecil the lion. Are we saying the dictionary meaning of the word changes when the deceased is a human? There is no mention of human in the dictionaries mentioned in our discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not entirely sure, but I'll offer some possibilities. I think it is more clear that someone deliberately set out to kill Harambe and Cecil – even the perpetrators would agree that those were clearly planned actions with a deliberate intent to kill. (I don't think anyone has said that "Killing of" implies criminal intent – just that it implies deliberate intent and thus seems inappropriate as a generally applied naming convention.) Also, there are major legal (and for most people, moral) repercussions for deliberate killings of people but not of apes and lions under the given circumstances, so we should be much more careful about describing the death of a person as a "killing" than the death of a non-human. What may seem like a euphemism to one person may be a restraint against expressing opinionated POV conclusions – if many of the "killers" were police, that is not necessarily pro-police bias – just anti-POV restraint. Also, there are so few articles about the violent deaths of individual animals that no one is really watching them for establishing a clear naming convention about them. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- The zoologist did not wake up that day intent on killing Harambe. They did it because there was a reasonable fear that he would harm the child. Assuming the best motives for police in these instances, the police did not wake up that day intent on killing a black man that day. They presummably did it because of a reasonable fear that he would harm another person or them. However, when police shoot, they shoot to kill. This is established in practice, training, and policy. The concept of shoot to wound has generally been rejected by every police department in the United States.
- Every time a police officer discharges their weapon, they do it with an intent to kill. Whether that intent is criminal or not is not our concern. Whether it is a justifiable killing or an unjustifiable killing is not our concern. In either case, it is a killing. An act done deliberately with the intent to cause the death of another being, whether for good cause or bad, is a killing. When a person shoots another in the torso multiple times, they intend to kill that person, plain and simple. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not entirely sure, but I'll offer some possibilities. I think it is more clear that someone deliberately set out to kill Harambe and Cecil – even the perpetrators would agree that those were clearly planned actions with a deliberate intent to kill. (I don't think anyone has said that "Killing of" implies criminal intent – just that it implies deliberate intent and thus seems inappropriate as a generally applied naming convention.) Also, there are major legal (and for most people, moral) repercussions for deliberate killings of people but not of apes and lions under the given circumstances, so we should be much more careful about describing the death of a person as a "killing" than the death of a non-human. What may seem like a euphemism to one person may be a restraint against expressing opinionated POV conclusions – if many of the "killers" were police, that is not necessarily pro-police bias – just anti-POV restraint. Also, there are so few articles about the violent deaths of individual animals that no one is really watching them for establishing a clear naming convention about them. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so sure of that either, and "Shooting of" does not necessarily imply that the shooter was a police officer. If there is a statistical difference depending on whether police were involved or not, that may be just an ease-of-finding bias. A while ago I learned during some RM discussion that there was a convention of ordinarily using "Shooting of" for articles about shootings, and IIRC, there was a reference to looking in categories to find such articles. To check the convention and look for other outliers, I looked in places like Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Australia, etc. Articles outside of those categories are harder to find. I don't think I'm the only person who has used categories to identify and reinforce naming consistency, and I don't think I'm biased in favor of police. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Evidence of significant differences you ask? Well, see my Quarry data above. We have an equal number of killing of and shooting of articles on the wiki. It's about a 2:1 non-redirect ratio for shooting of / killing of, but the majority of our shooting of articles seem to be black people in the US. So, I'd go out on a limb and say either most of our shooting/killing articles are of black people, or black people are disproportionately titled w shooting ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, hm, that's an interesting point. At what point is an event so big that it would overrule this? —valereee (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- My feeling is that we can set up redirects for "Killing of" or "Shooting of" or whatever the common terms are. This is something that simply needs to prevent systemic bias. It may not be perfect, but it may be a case of IAR w/re commonterm. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm trying to find a place where, right now, we can find something that is possible. If we insist that it be everything we ever wanted, there'll be pushback. Let's get what is possible. I think "Homicide of" is possible. It's possible that in the future, policy for "Killing of" is possible. I considered using 'Either "Killing of" or "Homicide of"' but again, that puts it into human judgement, and in this specific narrow case, I don't think we should leave it to judgement at each article. It's too open to the feeling of false consensus in the case of articles that get large numbers of new editors there to defend the police. I think some very formal "Homicide of" isn't as arguable with. I don't really care whether it's at Killing of or Homicide of. I don't think that's really important. I just want it to be the same for both Blacks and Whites. That's my feeling. —valereee (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, sorry, I think I shot you down too quickly. There is no harm in discussing it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it's probably a pipe dream, then. NM. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Ping Levivich for comment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think "homicide" is too technical to make a good article title. Like "Cardiac arrest of John Doe" or "Involuntary manslaughter of John Doe" (poor John). If we're writing for like a teenage reading level, I doubt the implications of "homicide" will be grasped by the average reader. There is that problem that in British English, "killing" apparently implies intentional killing, but you know they're only like less than 10% of all English speakers in the world, I think they should just update their dictionaries :-P Lev!vich 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: the idea that "killing" apparently implies "intentional killing", I think, is a red herring for two reasons:
- Events such as earthquakes are often described as "killing X people"
- Even when talking about a human killing another, it only means the killing was intentional and not accidental. It does not mean with criminal intent because we have the words murder and manslaughter to describe knowingly killing a person with criminal intent (i.e. with the intent to commit a crime). This is why the phrases "justifiable killing" and "unjustifiable killing" make sense at all and have wide use on Google Ngrams. If killing inherently implied criminality, then "justifiable killing" would be an oxymoron.
- Killing at most only includes the intention to kill and NOT the intention to commit a crime, or that the act was criminal. This is why self-defense can be described as a "justifiable killing".[3] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, quite the aspersion to imply the great Cambridge Dictionary could be wrong. Please strike. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: the idea that "killing" apparently implies "intentional killing", I think, is a red herring for two reasons:
Ping @BarrelProof and Roman Spinner:. Which do you object to more "Homicide of ... " or "Killing of ..."? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- If editors got the inkling that 'homicide' was being used as a stepping stone to 'killing of' they'd oppose flatly on creep grounds, without engaging in a discussion on the merits of the proposal. 'Killing of' is more natural, and with it being more commonly used it marries better with existing naming policy. Zindor (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Zindor, I don't see it as a stepping stone. I see it as an acknowledgement that consensus does change, and this is a moment, in the US at least, where that is probably happening but may not quite be there yet. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- You know, one thing we could do is set it up as
- Death of
- Killing of or Homicide of (please indicate your preference and provide rationale)
- Murder of
- That is, we don't necessarily have to decide on Killing of vs. Homicide of. We can ask for consensus on one vs. the other. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think that may be a good solution, valereee. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable way to lay it out. Lev!vich 02:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Zindor, I don't see it as a stepping stone. I see it as an acknowledgement that consensus does change, and this is a moment, in the US at least, where that is probably happening but may not quite be there yet. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- My gut reaction is to think that "Homicide" is a bit too far from ordinary plain language. And that some readers would conflate 'homicide' with 'murder'. I recall proposing the word "homicide" at least once in an RM – at Talk:2011 Waltham murders. That suggestion did not prevail – instead the agreed name became 2011 Waltham triple murder (which seems fine to me). In that discussion, one editor (Joseph A. Spadaro) said "To use the term 'homicide' implies that it is a non-murder (homicidal) death. If anything, that term would be POV." I don't agree, but that's what was said. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
related question
That maybe also needs an RfC: If the article is about how a human being died, is the death the most important thing about the story, and if it is, does that mean a shooting death should be treated as a death, not as a shooting, for purposes of choosing a title? —valereee (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- As time goes on, I more and more am coming to the opinion that we should just name the articles "John Doe" and not "Death of John Doe" or "Killing of John Doe", etc. Even if the only thing notable about a person is how they died, we should make the article about the person and not just about their death. I think that's more respectful to the subject. I think it's easier for the reader as well: a person looking for information about George Floyd's death will search for "George Floyd", not "death of George Floyd", "killing of George Floyd", or "homicide of George Floyd. Similarly, someone looking for information about Kurt Cobain's death will type in "Kurt Cobain suicide", not "suicide of Kurt Cobain". And, naming the articles after the subject instead of "Death of..." will make it easier on editors, who won't have to figure out these tricky issues about "Death of"/"Killing of"/"Suicide of". We would still have "Death of ..." articles as spinouts, e.g. Kurt Cobain or Michael Jackson, but in those cases it's almost a certainty that there would be a common name to name the spin-out (because of the large amount of coverage of the subject). But for victims of police shootings, for example, I'm starting to think we should just create articles about the victims instead of articles about their deaths. Separating out the notability of a person from the notability of their death increasingly strikes me as a splitting of hairs that leads to great complication and ultimately a less-than-optimal result. Lev!vich 17:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, I could get behind that. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- What you are suggesting is the Emmett Till model. I do not think the AFD-hawks would agree to that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's OK, I'm fluent in deletionist. But what do you think about it C&C? Is it better to just name the articles after the people and skip the whole "Death of..." debate? I.e., it would just be Greg Gunn, Rayshard Brooks, etc. Lev!vich 01:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, I am not excited by the prospect of COATRACK-like articles that would result. While we may be avoiding the NPOV debate over the title, we will end up creating articles that unduly focus on the death. Upwards of 80+ percent of these articles would focus on the death, which is not a balanced presentation of a person's biography. I would have immediately failed the GA for Emmett Till if I would have been the reviewer. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't think it's a problem that biographies of people focus on the part of the subject's life that the subject is notable for, even if it is their death. Most books about Emmett Till do focus on his death, after all, it would be natural for his Wikipedia biography to similarly focus on his death. In the same vein, biographies of Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth focus on their crimes, and books about Abraham Lincoln are mostly about his presidency not his law practice. If a WP article is a summary of secondary sources, and 80% of the secondary sources are about the person's death, it naturally follows that 80% of a WP article would be about the person's death. Does this change your mind? Lev!vich 02:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, such is life. It certainly convinces me enough not to oppose. However, the less drastic solution, but in a similar vain, would be to name all such articles "Death of ...", without discriminating between murder, manslaughter, fatal shooting, suicide or accident. At least that would have less detrimental effect to WP:N. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I kind of think that would be better than the inconsistent status quo. Just call a "death" article "death of..." and be done with it. Yet I know there are a number of editors who object to that on WP:N grounds for certain articles. So I'm not sure which solution to this problem will gain consensus (if any). And perhaps a smorgasbord RFC is what's needed. Lev!vich 02:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Death of" for all human deaths would work for me. The first sentence then could be argued over, but that would be better than having the titles be inconsistent and potentially biased. I'd just like us to have some consistency. —valereee (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I'd also like us to have consistency; that's really more important to me than any particular outcome, and I get the feeling that's how pretty much everyone feels.
- Maybe one approach is to do one of those RFC formats where an editor can make a statement and other editors agree/disagree with the statement. The proposed statements could be things like: "By default, articles about deaths should be titled 'Death of...'"; "By default, all articles about fatal shooting deaths should be titled 'Killing of...'"; "By default, all articles about shootings should be titled 'Shooting of...' regardless of whether the shooting was fatal or not", etc. Lev!vich 17:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, after the discussions I've seen, I think it's likely something that restrictively formatted with rationale in each case is necessary. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Death of" for all human deaths would work for me. The first sentence then could be argued over, but that would be better than having the titles be inconsistent and potentially biased. I'd just like us to have some consistency. —valereee (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I kind of think that would be better than the inconsistent status quo. Just call a "death" article "death of..." and be done with it. Yet I know there are a number of editors who object to that on WP:N grounds for certain articles. So I'm not sure which solution to this problem will gain consensus (if any). And perhaps a smorgasbord RFC is what's needed. Lev!vich 02:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, such is life. It certainly convinces me enough not to oppose. However, the less drastic solution, but in a similar vain, would be to name all such articles "Death of ...", without discriminating between murder, manslaughter, fatal shooting, suicide or accident. At least that would have less detrimental effect to WP:N. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't think it's a problem that biographies of people focus on the part of the subject's life that the subject is notable for, even if it is their death. Most books about Emmett Till do focus on his death, after all, it would be natural for his Wikipedia biography to similarly focus on his death. In the same vein, biographies of Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth focus on their crimes, and books about Abraham Lincoln are mostly about his presidency not his law practice. If a WP article is a summary of secondary sources, and 80% of the secondary sources are about the person's death, it naturally follows that 80% of a WP article would be about the person's death. Does this change your mind? Lev!vich 02:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, I am not excited by the prospect of COATRACK-like articles that would result. While we may be avoiding the NPOV debate over the title, we will end up creating articles that unduly focus on the death. Upwards of 80+ percent of these articles would focus on the death, which is not a balanced presentation of a person's biography. I would have immediately failed the GA for Emmett Till if I would have been the reviewer. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's OK, I'm fluent in deletionist. But what do you think about it C&C? Is it better to just name the articles after the people and skip the whole "Death of..." debate? I.e., it would just be Greg Gunn, Rayshard Brooks, etc. Lev!vich 01:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)