This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. 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 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

May 2015

Please comment on Talk:List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries)

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC

Done

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazi Germany

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazi Germany. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genocides in history

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genocides in history. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of Slovakia

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Slovakia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Restart

@Montanabw: Upon some reflection, it occurs to me that our long if sporadic history of sometime-hostility appears to be making each of us tend to leap to the most negative conclusion we can about what the other posts. I'd like to propose a conscious moratorium on this, if we can manage it. For my part, I apologize for not simply taking your recent post at face value, as if I was looking to find something to be offended about, and for posting a flippant response that could be interpreted as a personal dig (though it was not intended that way; it was a somewhat hyperbolic observation about trying to change intrinsic things about other editors, like their writing style). Anyway, here's to more fruitful collaboration. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think we share the traits you list in your edit notice - about "fools, cranks, divas, trolls or soapboxers" - and we both probably have dealt with a few too many of the above. So deal. Clean start, focus on issues - and yeah, I think we basically are about 80% or more in agreement on what constitutes breed notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wise words

I just wanted to memorialise these wise words from your recent comment:

A large proportion of MOS's guidance is expected to not be followed by casual editors, and implemented in cleanup by MOS gnomes; that's true of everything from date formats to spaces between measurements and unit symbols (and non-breaking ones at that), insertion of non-breaking spaces in various other cases, using the {{sic}} template, and on and on. "Not everyone does it" isn't a valid rationale against MOS recommending any particular best practice.
— User:SMcCandlish 08:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well put!

BTW, do you realise your talk page still says: "I might check Wikipedia, but I won't be actively participating or editing until 1 April 2015"? —sroc 💬 17:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah, I frequently forget to update that status thing. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Despicable

How you first chastises me for using the word crusade and then embarks on your own paragraph long personal attack. May your anus itch and your arms be too short to reach.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't make threats to conduct long term edit wars across thousands of pages. But it is ok when Giraffedata carries out long term editwars across thousands of pages. I shouldn't respond to his disrepectful and arrogasnt tone in kind. But it is OK for him to do it in the first place. I don't understand the 5 pillars because I think I have a right to decide what words goes into the articles I write. But Giraffedata does understand the 5 pillars because he insists on his right to decide what words goes into articles I write and which he otherwise hasn't edited. I see a weird pattern in your argumentation. It looks like good old one-eyed hypocrisy, based on one's personal likes and dislikes. I get it: you like giraffedata and dislike "comprised of" and me. But maybe you could read the actual essay and address the arguments in it instead of the immoral and incoherent argument you think I really want to make. The essay in fact suggests that carrying out long term editwars to prove a point or to enforce one's pet peeve is a bad thing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to refactor your recent comment to remove the quote that was not mine. And no I am not going to tell you which one of them that is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus:That's a funny curse; I'll have to remember that one. If you really want to discuss this stuff, there's a surprising amount to cover here.

I'll number these for easier reference:

Collapsing this stuff because no one else could possibly care about this argument

"Despicable" is a great example of the kind of argument to emotion and ad hominem I keep mentioning as problematic in your posts. This kind of subjective and pejorative but indefinable invective is dissimilar to editor criticisms that have clear meanings in WP policy and practice (though you misuse plenty of those too, like "disruptive" without any indication what part of WP:DE is actually being transgressed, even after being asked what the nature of the disruption is). Criticism is not in and of itself a personal attack; you should know this, since you seem to spend even more time than I do criticizing other editors. Personal attacks are rather narrowly defined in policy.
Objecting to "crusade" as a variant of the argumentum ad Hitlerum fallacy (and I criticized two other editors in the same discussion for using it) is entirely unrelated to criticizing other things; there's no hypocrisy in objecting to that term, with the rationale I provided, while also offering criticisms myself. Not all criticisms are equivalent. I also objected to"obsessive"/"obsession" on similar grounds; that's a psychiatric diagnosis. There are lots of other ways to say what you are trying to convey without resorting to either word, and we even have essays, guidelines, and policies you can link to when doing so. Try "advocacy campaign" or "activist campaign" or simply "campaign", as appropriate for the context, for example.
No one said it's okay for Giraffedata to conduct any long-term editwar across thousands of pages. I've asked half a dozen times for proof that he's doing so, and you never provide it, nor does anyone else. You just don't agree with his usage (but have weaker, if any, sourcing to back up your side), and don't like that he uses AWB, a tool you appear to categorically distrust, as evidenced by the very nature of your proposal. Making a consistent pattern of edits, and returning months later to some pages to make similar but not identical edits to see if they're better-accepted, is not editwarring. A vow that you will "not back down" and will revert (and re-re-revert) someone's edits you don't like is not comparable, and is in fact a threat to engage in pointy, battleground-ish editwarring as it's actually defined in WP:EDITWAR policy. But your point isn't valid anyway. Two wrongs don't make a right: You can't point to alleged bad behavior by one editor and use it as an excuse to promise a campaign of your own bad behavior. Cf. the hypocrisy point, below.
'I don't understand the 5 pillars because I think I have a right to decide what words goes into the articles I write.' While I realize you're caricaturing my view of your position, not stating your real one, let's think about this. You do not write articles here. You help write them, in collaboration with other editors. Even if, by chance, you accidentally happen to be the only editor who's worked on a article so far, it's still WP's article, not yours, and you have precisely 0% more say over the future direction of that article than anyone else who cares to work on it, and than over any other page here. (Even WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR are basically set already by that point, since to not be a WP:CSD/WP:PROD/WP:AFD target, the page must have enough content, which must exist in one ENGVAR or another, to be meaningful to readers, and it must have enough sources to not fail WP:N and WP:V). You can't long after the fact say "Well, I was the first contributor, and my preference is..." and expect to be taken seriously. Neither ENGVAR nor CITEVAR will admit such editorial control claims, and depend entirely on whether the content of the article (WP's article, not your article) already clearly had a particular (and subject-appropriate) English-language variety and a recognizable citation style that WP accepts, respectively. You absolutely do not have "a right to decide what words goes [sic] into the article". Like everyone else, you have a right, within the bounds of content policies and guidelines, to decide what words you will put into it (and sometimes remove from or alter in it, of course). Your work on the article like everyone else's may be "mercilessly edited". You do seem to be genuinely confused on most or all of these points.
You've set up this scenario that appears to rely on a presumption there's some consensus to use "comprises of" at an article you feel that you (or you and a select handful of others) should have considerable or total control over, and along comes this WP:NOTHERE jackass to makes pointless changes to perfectly grammatical wording, and editwars with you about it incessantly, insisting on his right to have his way and denying you yours. But every single aspect of this appears to be fantasy. You've provided zero evidence for an actual consensus in favor of "comprises of" on any page anywhere as the best possible wording, despite multiple editors asking you for this evidence. We know as a matter of very clear policy that you and some other regular editors of page do not control how it gets edited. You assert that Giraffedata's editing on WP is worthless, and even state explicitly that people who aren't working much on a specific article's creation and enlargement should have fewer article editing rights at it compared to those who do, despite clear policy against this idea, and a community-wide acceptance of the fact that all sorts of editorial roles on WP add value, not just mainspace additions. You also know that his rationale for the edits is that they improve the quality of the text (whether you agree they do or not, but it's a WP:AGF problem to assume that they don't and that he knows they don't and is just being a pain in your side for his own entertainment). Next, you know full well that many editors, perhaps a majority who have thought about it, agree with him that the phrase is at least grammatically controversial, if not unsound, and regardless of the prescriptive grammar question, it has understandability issues for some non-trivial number of readers. Many of the responses to your proposal make this point clearly, but you just ignore them and say they're missing the point of the proposal. Moving on, you've been asked repeatedly for proof of his editwarring, as defined by policy, and don't deliver. His own statements vs. yours make it very clear that he isn't denying you any right to make edits against his and is even suggesting you should do so if you can't come to some compromise, though observing that his objections to your version are just as valid as yours are to his; meanwhile you by your own words are explicitly trying to deny him any right to edit at an article that he's not a major editor of already. So, every facet of this approach of yours to the question is unsupportable, and mostly an exact reversal of reality.
Clearly you think I'm being hypocritical and I think you're being hypocritical, while I think you're engaging in WP:ILIKEIT arguments and you think the same about me. I give actual rationales for my perception in this regard, and you simply repeat the assertion, a poor discussion tactic. Regardless, revisiting the hypocrisy question is liable to be a mutual waste of time.
I don't know if I "like" Giraffedata; I've hardly interacted with him in any way, even up to the present. I agree with him on this usage issue, I agree that he's using AWB responsibly, and I do think he's being scapgoated to make a point and/or that the proposal is primarily a way to get at him rather than to resolve an actual general problem. I don't know if I don't "like" you. I agree with you sometimes, and don't other times, and we have not interacted long enough for me to have much of a general impression. In this particular debate, I don't agree with you on much of anything, and I think you're being overly emotional, vindictive, illogical, and petty. But I'm sure I've done that before too, and I have no reason to assume these problems with your debate here are consistent and habitual across all discussions. I don't "dislike" the "comprises of" construction; I simply agree with avoiding it because of the problems so many others have raises about it, and because thinking and reading about it, including in off-WP sources, has led me independently to the same conclusions as many of them. To me it's a bit like saying "you believe in evolution"; it's a nonsensical characterization. "Believe" and "like" are not applicable to my reasoning in either cases. They're both a matter of what can be concluded from the evidence. As an aside, I don't have to like you to collaborate with you. If personal chumminess were required, WP would have fallen apart the day it started.
I did read the essay, but did not respond to it (yet). It deserves more thought, and a neutral approach. I would rather "cool off" after the VP debate and approach the essay with fresh eyes some other time. The basic concept probably has merit, but it's marred by "crusade" invective and "pet peeve" belittlement, and I'm not sure it will tell us anything we don't already know. I.e., what is novel or pithy about it? I'm not sure yet. (I'm not saying nothing is.) The tone seems self-conflicted. If you're going to use a phrase like "pet peeve", it should be kept light, with an air of gently-mocking humor, like many essays do. If it's going to remain more serious, it needs to use more neutral and precise language. There really are two major essay styles here, and they don't mix well. I also think it's mixing two different, unrelated concerns: pursuit of "pet peeves", or single-minded focus on trivial matters that only seem important to the one focusing on them, but also what you elsewhere called "slow editwarring" across many pages to gradually effect a broad change. Either of these could be problems, but are not intrinsically related, and neither are necessarily/always problems. Anyone could "slow editwar" about something that is not a peeve, or pursue peeves far more disruptively by other means. And both approaches are effectively used to implement valid work (e.g. there are explicit exceptions to WP:EDITWAR, and many of them are "enforced" by what is literally editwarring of an exempt kind). Also, neither of these two concerns are really related to "editwars to prove a point", which is already covered by WP:POINT.
Your 'immoral and incoherent argument you think I really want to make' comment indicates you think that I'm engaging in a straw man with regard to your overall premise, but you haven't said in what way(s) you think your actual position differs from my stated perception of it. I've made no moral argument of any kind, however, and don't think that morality is relevant (though ethics might be, and I allow that some use the terms interchangeably). I don't think your entire idea is incoherent, just a couple of your VP responses were, in part.

                          ,'   ~   ',
                         /;M, ;:;~,M;\
                        |;M;%~%`%~%;M;|
                         `/%:':%;';%\`
                         `%%:,:%:,:%%`
                        /%%%`*`%`*`%%%\
                 ,_-~~--__,,_-~~~-_,,__--~~-_,
               -'     ,,   -,      ,-   ,,    '-
               ~    ,'-_    ~-____-~    _-',    ~
              _-~       ~~-_,,,,,,,_-~~        ~-_
               -_-~~_-~~-_,          ,_-~~-_~~-_-
  ~,,,                    ~_        _~
   `, ~-_,                  `      `
     ~;  ;~_,               ;      ;
     / ~-`,  ;              ;      ;
    /`___; ~ :             ;        ;
    `-,,; ,_-%;       ,-%%%%        %%%,
         ~;%%%%:    -~%%%%;%        %%%%;
           ;%%%%;,:~%%%%%%;%        %%%%;
            :%%%%%%%%%%%%;%          %%%%;
             ;%%%%%%%%,%-;%          %%%%;
              ;%%%,%-~  ;%%          %%%%%;
                ~~      ;%%          %%%%%;
                        ;%%          %%%%%;
                       ;%%            %%%%%;
                       ;%%            %%%%%;
                      ;%%              %%%%%;
                      ;%%              %%%%%;
                     ;%%                %%%%%;
                     ;%%            ,_-~  ~``;
                     ;%%            ~-_,     :
                    ;%%%                ;    ;
                    ;%%%%               ; ; ;;
                    ;%%%%%             %;,_-~
                     ;%%%%%           %%%%%%;
                     ;%%%%%%         %%%%%%;
                      ;%%%%%%       %%%%%%;
                       ;%%%%%%%   %%%%%%%;~-_,
                        ;%%%%%%%I%%%%%%%;%%%%%%~--___,,,_%%%%_,,
                        ;%%%%%%%|%%%%%%%;%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%~ ;
                 _-~~-__;%%%%%%%|%%%%%%%;,__-~~-%%%%%%-%_-~~~ -_,;
                ;,_         ~~~~|~~~~          _,;
                ;  ,-      __--~ ~--__      -,  ;
                 ~~__,,_-~~           ~~-_,,__~~

"Deththpicable!" - Sylvester

I think that covers everything, if you have the patience for it.

PS, re: 'You need to refactor your recent comment to remove the quote that was not mine.' – I have no idea what you're referring to. 'And no I am not going to tell you which one of them that is.' Then of course I can't and won't respond to this demand in any way but quizzically ignoring it and wondering why you're wasting both our time with passive-aggressive anti-collaborative gamesmanship. If I actually did misquote, and you indicate where, I'll certain fix it. I'm probably unavailable for a while, soon, so I'd need a response pretty quickly to act on it pretty quickly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian (disambiguation)

Resolved

– Fixed the page to comply with the guidelines.

Hi. I think your creation of Serbo-Croatian (disambiguation) was a bad idea: the page does not disambiguate anything of substance. Per WP:MOSDAB, dab pages are supposed to list articles on similar-named topics, not list of dictionary definitions: we don't have an article on "Shared aspects of culture in Serbia and Croatia", and it's unlikely that it would be called "Serbo-Croatian something" anyway. The only half-plausible entry is Croatia–Serbia relations. The "See also" entries are subtopics of the main article.
Unless you'd propose expansion with some other plausibly ambiguous articles, I'd like to nominate the page for deletion. No such user (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@No such user: Do what you like. The fact that we have an article Serbo-Croatian kinship, which is a socio-cultural matter at least as much as a linguistic one, also demonstrates substance. It's entirely plausible to have articles Serbo-Croatian literature and Serbo-Croatian music, covering these topics from a cross-cultural, shared language perspective instead of a nationalistic one, and some of them can redir to broader topics (it's weird that one of these is a redlink, with nowhere to go, actually), while Serbo-Croatian cuisine is a likely redirect name for an article that is an overview of the cuisine of the region generally, though not a great actual article title. Serbo-Croatian kinship is one example of shared aspects of culture that we already have an article on, so it really belongs in the main list. It's fine to WP:IAR a little with a rule like MOSDAB when robotic adherence to it does not best serve the readership. There are other reasons to have this DAB page, e.g. as a link target for redirects like Serbo-Croatia. Any readers (e.g. billions of school children) who are not subject-matter experts about that area are not likely to be certain whether that was, historically, ever a legitimate geographical name or not, and it's a disservice to readers to have that go nowhere (it was a redlink a few hours ago) or go to a language article that doesn't quite pertain to that phrase. Same goes for the en-dash version of Serbo–Croatian; it will not in most cases pertain to the language, but is a compound adjective referring to interrelation between Serbia and Croatia. My attempt to populate that DAB page was not exhaustive; I did not even know the article Croatia–Serbia relations existed. So, it's fairly likely that additional items can be found to put there. It's standard operating procedure to include some dicdefs if they are helpful to readers, and especially if it's likely that some articles are missing. Finally, it's routine for DAB pages' see-also sections to list articles (and redirects to article subtopics) that begin with the same phrase; I just forgot to pipe some of them or use their redirs. And to list other things that don't but which are directly relevant and may be what the reader is actually looking for. It is not necessary to do some kind of subjective analysis to determine whether something is a subtopic of another according to some conceptual hierarchy.

Anyway, I've edited the page to improve it, and it appears to satisfy WP:MULTIDABS.

PS: This took only a few minutes of work. I'm pretty sure that was a far more productive use of that time that launching a deletion process. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:H:IPA

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:H:IPA. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please

I would really like you to consider the high level of support that I have given to a great many of your past proposals when you make, as far as I can see, fallacious accusation, "You appear to be willfully misinterpreting whatever I write, just to engage in time-wasting "sport debate"."[1] What did I misinterpret?? You have a history of requesting a great many moves in adding terms to titles in the way of American Sable → American Sable rabbit by way of increasing length that goes far beyond a difference between your quoted "(mythology)" → "(Aztec deity)".

Can I personally ask you please consider not making accusations such as "That's a nasty disservice to our readers" just for things like suggesting adding a qualification to a title in a way that you have done many times.

In general my suggestions do not go nearly as far as your additions of qualification and I had every right to fairly point this out. Then when I point out what I personally see to be a clear double standard on your part, I try in good faith to get clarity, in a way which was certainly not trying to make "something ... out of nothing" and I feel you go off in attacking "sport debate", my wanting "to bend over backwards to try to spin" out an observation on some rule of shortening titles that I had not in any way mentioned. I fully see that at times you get "past the point of caring" and again, as in my edit of 13:16 on the 2nd of this month, I would "would counsel in other situations to care more".

I wrote directly in regard to what I saw to be a double standard that from my understanding is clearly specified above. I am still bewildered by mention of Siamese cat. I cannot help it if you see a response to this as being "inflamatory".

Please, please understand that if you write on talk pages other people can reply. I really want to ask you to review the extent that you attack in your responses. I have always been straight forward with you. There is no bending over backward to spin. Greg Kaye 13:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I feel I'm the one being antagonized. I also don't view WP as an allies vs. opponents enterprise. If you supported RMs I proposed, it was because you thought they made sense, not because you liked me. If you oppose some later, it should be because you disagree with them on their own merits, not because I've irritated you.

I went back to the WT:RELIGION discussion, and the earlier WT:AT discussion, and wrote a detailed analysis, some of it clause by clause, to answer your question, 'What did I misinterpret?', and to address all this other stuff that keeps coming up cyclically. It cost me several hours of my time, and was extremely irritating. But it's huge, you wouldn't be at all happy with it, and I have little faith that it would be productive. I've done this sort of re-explaining with you before, to no avail. There's no question that there's a PEBKAC problem here. Only outside observers, I suppose, could determine whether the problem really exists between your keyboard and chair, or mine, or both. It may well be that you have trouble following my logic. It may well be that I have trouble expressing it understandably. Given how precisely I write, I obviously feel I'm very clear. I'm sure you feel similarly strongly about your reasoning skills. So, we should probably both just zip it and move on. The fact that you can be "bewildered" when I simply use an example to illustrate how the lengthening or shortening of the name had no effect on RM outcome, strongly indicates these kinds of discussions may not be your strong suit. There are a hundred zillion things to do on Wikipedia. Policy debate, or maybe naming policy debate in particular, may not be a productive one for you. It doesn't seem to be a pleasant one for you.

I really want to ask you to review the extent to which you accuse others of attacking you when they offer any criticism of your logic or behavior, and the extent to which you try to read personal insult into every turn of phrase you don't like, even when it's about inanimate things like the productivity of discussions or the relevance of assertions. We've been over this before a couple of times, too. You very frequently accuse people of making personal attacks, when nothing in WP:NPA is actually applicable. (Though I did already admit I was WP:DICKish on your talk page; I thought we'd resolved that. If you need an explicit apology, yes, I apologize for that. I thought I did already.) I don't believe in trying to get people to apologize. I don't care if they're apologetic, I just want the how-can-I-needle-someone-today behavior to stop. I haven't even gotten into what was wrong with your posts and arguments in the WT:RELIGION thread, and why so much of what you've come to my talk page to complain about is blatant psychological projection. Like I say, I doubt it would be productive. That whole sprawling pile of threads at WT:RELIGION has been administratively closed, so just letting it be water under the bridge is probably best. IF you really want to go over it, I dumped it in User talk:SMcCandlish/GregKaye.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Fixed

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fancy rat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[American Fancy Rat and Mouse Association]] (AFRMA) lists '''black''', '''pink''', '''ruby''', and [[Heterochromia iridum|'''odd-eyed'''] (two different-coloured eyes) as possible eye colours,
jsp?cfile=htm/bc/171543.htm|title=Merck Veterinary Manual - Management|quote=Ambient temperatures >85°F (29.4°C), high humidity levels (>80%), poor ventilation, and overcrowding predispose rodents to heat exhaustion.|accessdate=7

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fancy rat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

basis for the films ''[[Willard (1971 film)|Willard]]'' (1971) and ''[[Ben (1972 film)|Ben]]'' 1972), and a 2003 [[Willard (2003 film)|remake of the first film]]. Here, the protagonist befriends the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Redir to redlinked page.

Hey there. You just made Varieties of mice and Variety of mouse. I suspect you made a typo in the name of the page it should redirect to, though, as they currently (attempt and fail to) link to the non-existent page Mouse variety. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Look again. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, nice! Suppose the confusion came from you creating the redirects before creating the actual page—but then again, under normal circumstances what are the chances of someone happening across it in those few minutes, eh? By the way, have a big fat thank you! for your hard work today on a variety of things rodent, redir, dab or accompanying template. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome. Part of my overall incremental efforts on improving coverage of domestic animal breeding generally. We really need better coverage of that for both rats and mice. For mice, we have nearly nothing at all, list-wise, though there are several articles on individual lab mouse strains. for rats, we have an embedded list of noteworthy lab strains, and then a descriptive set of paragraphs about different fancy rat characteristics, but without any indication which ones are show categories according to what organizations. As for redirs, yeah, the ones I was making were already redlinks, so the order didn't matter. I just had them all open for editing and saved them one after another. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Hey, if you can point me at the relevant stuff, I'm happy to help you with it. Any chance you have a list of "red-linked but needed" articles, or a list of stubs you feel should have highest priority in expanding? Can't promise how much I'll be able to do, but I should be able to squeeze in some editing here and there between the vandal-reverting/warning/reporting and the typo-fixing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably the most straightforward and easy first step would to be look at Category:Laboratory mouse breeds (which is misnamed), and create a list of them as a section in the lab mice article. That gives us something to redirect List of laboratory mouse strains to, which in turn can be added to Breed#Lists of animal breeds, as has been done for List of laboratory rat strains. Such an embedded lab mouse strain list also would give a place to put redlink entries that we should have articles on. Next, the Fancy mouse article needs a list of the various varieties of fancy mice are (e.g. as defined for show purposes), and what their distinguishing characteristics are, according to which clubs. This too could be added to the Breed article, as was done for the section redir List of fancy rat varieties. And finally, the fancy rat article's material could be better organized so that it's clearer on the differences between the varieties as defined as show categories by various groups, vs. what particular traits are. Right now it commingles traits and varieties that have them. PS: If any fancy rat and mouse varieties have a breed standard, with points of conformation, and maybe even a pedigree registration system, that's enough evidence to label them a standardized breed, like many cat, dog, horse, etc., breeds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Might have to hop back here for advice if I'm uncertain on something, but it sounds like there are several things I can work on/with. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Schweet. I'm presently normalizing the categorization, and will CfR the lab mouse category to use "strain" not "breed". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Sounds like the better location/name for it, in any case. Seems like it's currently pretty busy on the vandal-fighting front, or I'd start working on some of it now. Oh well, there are plenty of times when it's a lot calmer and I can properly work on it. Since I'm talking to you right now anyway, what would you say are the foremost (preferably online-accessible) sources for rat/mouse breed standards and pedigrees? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea, that's why I was deferring to you. >;-) At a guess, I'd see the organizations listed in Fancy rat and Fancy mouse, and maybe google for a few others (our articles on animal breeds often miss international and major national breeder/fancier groups). See if they have breed/show standards with conformation points listed. I just finished fleshing out Category:Laboratory rats with everything we seem to have, on those, and reorganized all the relevant stuff I can find so far into a new Category:Laboratory rodents. I'm sure there are strains of rabbits and guinea pigs for labs, as there are of mice and rats, but WP doesn't seem to have anything on it yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. XD Well, that just means I ought to simply dive into things to figure out some sources. I do have the additional advantage of being fluent in Dutch and having a good enough knowledge of another few languages to translate them moderately well. Means I have a bigger pool of sources to dive into to fish up those that are both informative and reliable. Though of course it then means I'd have to cross-reference again to figure out what the English names are supposed to be, as literal translations often are humorous but altogether wrong (or not humorous, but still wrong). For example, the Dutch name for the Abyssinian guinea pig literally means "rough-haired guinea pig" or "bristle guinea pig". If I find useful sources, would you appreciate me dropping a link here as well? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Now Category:Laboratory_rat_strains has the entries it should. And, sure, I'm always up for know what good sources are on this stuff. If any are breed encyclopedias or something like that for rodent species, maybe add to the thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds)#Breed books. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that always the case with Wikipedia? Just as soon as you think you're done, something pops up that you have missed. 'least seems to be that way for me. XD And I will let you know whatever good sources I may uncover. If they're pretty narrow in focus, I'll probably just alert you to them; if they're broad--like a rodent species breed encyclopedia or even just a mice breed encyclopedia or such--I'll add them to the thread you linked as well.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)