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 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

November 2008

No content in Category:Swiss snooker players

Resolved

– Moot; speedily deleted before I could examine the situation. I suspect an article was tenuously AfDed and should be restored, with an addl. source or 2 or 5.

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Swiss snooker players, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Swiss snooker players has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Swiss snooker players, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nominations

Resolved

– Clarified at WP:CFD.

You may already be aware (since you just posted a nom), but there have been other such nominations, some of which are still pending. (I won't call this canvassing since you already posted at CfD : ) - jc37 12:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean other nominations for Category:Fictional nuclear explosions in film and television? It had no CfD tag on it, or its talk page, so I didn't think to look. Or am I misunderstanding you? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar as in fiction-related. - jc37 13:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Surname disambiguation templates

Resolved

– No issues.

You created this category and tagged the associated templates as disambiguation templates. However, they are really not disambiguation templates as they don't disambiguate between multiple articles. Instead, they eliminate the ambiguity between the proper name and the surname within an article.

I normally wouldn't worry about wording issues like that except there are bots who automatically create links between target (disambiguation) and target when the target has a disambiguation template. In this case, this causes an error as the target is not a dab page.

I'm going to move the categories to another name (Category:Surname clarification templates perhaps?) to prevent that from happening in the future unless there is something I'm missing.

Let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Glossolalia

Resolved

– Input given.

Hello! I've been arguing for the inclusion of glossaries for years!

The latest conversation is ~~ongoing at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Glossaries~~archived at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 22#Glossaries. I think they're beginning to agree with the ideas I'm putting forward, so you may just want to watch for now, but I've summarized most of the recent/relevant links in that thread so it might be useful to read through.

Perhaps add these pages to your watchlist: Portal:Contents/List of glossaries and Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries(outofdate). Also, I'll try to give some feedback at wt:mosgloss soonish. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should weigh in on this. Please also drop User talk:Fuhghettaboutit a note about this, if you have a moment (out of time for WPing ~~tonight~~ this morning myself). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Grrr, this again. Thanks for telling Quiddity to drop me a note, and to you too Quiddity for doing so. I have a great time drain right now but will respond there if it's not resolved on the good side soon, i.e., keeping glossaries. I just want to grab them like dogs who have had accidents and rub their faces in researched, historical, footnoted, cross-linked, sections of WP:CUEGLOSS while saying bad!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've done a bit of updating at Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries (and constructed a {{Glossaries}} navbox). Feel free to continue the overhaul, and perhaps let's continue any relevant discussion at that project's talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Both of y'alls should add yourselves to the list of project participants, methinks. Also, I have posted a big missive and several smaller replies at WT:NOT#Glossaries. That and I've moved that it be marked with {{Resolved}} as off-topic for the venue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Football dabs

Resolved

– Issue has moved to other venues.

SMcCandlish. I am furious with User:Tavix. The user has occasionally moved football articles with names such as Eagle Day (football player) to Eagle Day (Canadian football) and I have reverted the move and tried to explain how that is not a helpful dab and violates the conventions and spirit of WP:NCP. The dab should describe the person and not the sport unless it makes the dab unwieldy, such as (baseball player and coach) in which common sense says that (baseball) is a reasonable exception. This kind of dab not only fails the convention of describing the person and of not making the dab any less unwieldy but it also makes for less correct dabs. Eagle Day was an American, and played both American and Canadian football. In that there are no other Eagle Days that are best known as football players, the (football player) dab is perfect.

I have tried my best to convey this in the past at User talk:Tavix but the user refuses to acknowledge my concerns. The user's response has been that the exceptions are permitted for unwieldy dabs (but clearly this does not improve it) and that the dab football in itself must be dabbed, thus the user would require the code of football attached to every football dab. It is quite unnecessary, obviously, when there is no other article that shares a name with another code of football and, in fact, it is extremely unhelpful and ambiguity about the code of football is useful when so many articles can be shared by people and things that are shared amongst the codes of football.

I was willing to correct the dabs and respond to the user about the undesirability of the moves when it was only a handful every week or so in hopes that Tavix would learn over time the wisdom of the WP:NCP but today the user has gone on a mission of, at this time and continuing of some 200 moves. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=250&type=move&user=Tavix I am too furious to respond and would like a third party familiar with the DAB conventions such as yourself to step in here. Incidentally, I see now that the user has also now moved Eagle Day to Herman "Eagle" Day. While I appreciate that it avoids the other less desirable dabs, it is a name he has never been known by. It is also only an example, there are far more moves that have been done by dabs that are of the manner I described above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have raised the issue in general now at WT:NCP#Football dabs revisited as well. I would still like someone like yourself to communicate with Tavix as my communications have gone nowhere and I am not in a civil mood at the moment. Tavix's actions seem very disruptive to me but I am too involved to judge fairly. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, at his talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If he does it again, add a customized uw-mos3 (see my note on his page for an example of a custom uw-mos2), and take the matter to WP:ANI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Your calm and rational explanation was exactly what I hoped for and knew I could not do. I hope that it finally sinks in. If not, one cannot but assume intended disruption. Thanks also for the recommended warning. Regards, DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ack. He has started again and requested a ban to stop him. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Took it to WP:ANI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that I responded to your ANI report. All the reasons for my actions is stated in there. Tavix (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I replied there as well. I don't find the rationales at all compelling, frankly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention?

Good day SMcCandlish. This issue has continued though, thankfully, at a more moderate pace. Nonetheless, I am tired of the ridiculous moves and rationales behind them. I am generally unflappable and easy-going but this fellow has a manner that can really antagonise me somehow. His rallying cry is "Consistency", which in itself is a good thing but when it is to worse dabs it makes things consistently bad. It's become apparent to me that several in the NFL project favour the (American football) dab. I think it's a bad choice, obviously, but only get involved when it affects players who play more than one code of football. I think it's time to deal with the issue more generally.

I would very much have preferred to just use the general naming convention guidelines but it's clear that they are inadequate to deal with this situation. I wonder if it's wise at this point to begin a proposal for Naming conventions (football players) or Naming conventions (gridiron players) or Naming conventions (athletes). I respect your wisdom, experience, and neutrality in this area so am seeking your opinion on the way forward. I generally prefer broad and general guidelines to reduce the number of rules and guidelines but it may (or may not) be easier to narrow the scope. FYI, I wrote some guidelines for Canadian football player articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football/Player pages format#Naming conventions (I invite your improvements) which I suppose I would use as a starting point but would need slight modifications to include American football, great modifications to include all football codes, and wouldn't even bother to use if an Athletes-wide convention is sought. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. Consistently unhelpful is worse that helpful but inconsistent, even when we accept consistency (as I do) as a useful goal generally. He appears to be using this particular naming nitpick to defend his overall pattern of disruptive moves, which are across many topics. I can only find one single positive response on his talk page and its history to him moving an article, and a significant proportion of posts on his talk page are complaints about his moves. As for this particular issue, I'm getting kind of tired of it - I've sought consensus at WT:NCP, but it has yet to fully materialize, because too many participants in a handful of sports projects that think they are "special" somehow have derailed it. Not sure where to go from here. I think a WP-wide RFC on the matter at NCP might be needed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited your WProject naming convention a bit. I think that it is solid enough to use as the basis for a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), and will start drafting that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've created that page now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate and approve your improvements to the WPCFL guideline. I will have a look at the proposed convention and am glad that it's progressing so quickly. Hope it continues to go well and reach a conclusion. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it over and am strongly in favour of it. You've clearly done a lot of work in short time. Thanks again for getting this going. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

Of course a few hours later he begins another mass move of nearly 200 articles at this moment in the last 90 minutes. I have reported to WP:ANI. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Will support. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)