| I'm not that active these days, but I'm still around. Feel free to send me an extra poke here or via e-mail for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi). | |
I live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.
Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.
| Village pump sections | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy post | watch | search To discuss existing and proposed policies |
Technical post | watch | search To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports use MediaZilla |
Proposals (persistent) post | watch | search To discuss new proposals that are not policy related. See also: perennial proposals. |
Assistance post | watch | search To post requests for assistance not covered by the Help desk or the Reference desk |
Miscellaneous post | watch | search To post messages that do not fit into any other category | |
| I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled reading through the previous RfC regarding the use of an infobox on this page—I was not aware that infoboxes were considered controversial.
However, given 3 years have passed since that consensus was formed, I would like to see if there was still a consensus against the inclusion of an infobox among the editors of this article. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| The Sun was a broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969. It was a replacement for a similar broadsheet newspaper called the Daily Herald, which it resembled. It was owned by the International Publishing Corporation and the Mirror Group. Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie had nothing to do with it. In 1969, it was replaced by a very different and disimilar tabloid newspaper with the same name, called The Sun, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch. That tabloid newspaper has an entry in WP:RSP located at WP:THESUN. Unfortunately that entry fails to indicate whether it applies to the previous broadsheet newspaper, and the broadsheet newspaper does not appear to have been discussed during previous discussions of "The Sun" at RSN. We need to decide whether the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969 is reliable, so that the entry at WP:THESUN can be clarified.
Accordingly this Request for Comment asks: What is the reliability of the national daily broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969 called The Sun?
|
| Should the stage name of an artist be styled in all caps if that is the way the artist explicitly wishes it to be styled, and that is how it is most often styled in sources? I.e. should "MF Doom" should be styled as "MF DOOM" per ? Example of source containing the correct styling: https://web.archive.org/web/20240624134441/https://www.npr.org/2021/01/01/952519277/mf-doom-enigmatic-rapper-and-producer-dead-at-49 Criedley (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of The Dorchester Review?
Note, see previous discussions at RSN: here and here. See previous discussion on an article's talk here TarnishedPathtalk 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of The Times of India?
|
CGI skeleton 
Photo of person
|
Should the first sentence say Swedish-born French, Swedish-Frenchor some other option? Should we omit von Sydow's nationality in the first sentence and explain it later? As for previous conversations, see this, this and this. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
| In the text Rembrandt is referred to as "a Dutch Golden Age painter", not as a "Dutch painter". However, not all painters of the Dutch Golden Age were actually Dutch. Therefore, this is potentially confusing and definitely not accurate. Should this be replaced by a normal reference (e.g. "Dutch painter") to his nationality? Nico Gombert (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
There has been a bit of disagreement on which word should describe Twitter's situation (specifically in the first sentence and in the infobox) now that X is its own page.
Unnamed anon (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Infobox of the artist include the fact that the town Bruegel in Brabant is a possibility - as one of the two sources of the text is claiming - where Pieter Bruegel was born? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There has been a long-running slow-motion dispute on this page regarding the list of tour dates for the supporting album tour that ran from February 4 to July 22, 2023.
The project page, WP:CONCERT TOUR, says that for an article on a concert tour, " Neither of these pages are policy, but they leave gray the question of how to treat a concert tour that is arguably notable enough to have a separate article, but can arguably more concisely be presented to the reader as a section of an article on the album being promoted through this tour. BD2412 T 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Megabytes of text have been written on this Talk in the last 30 days, with 87 distinct editors making a total of 917 edits. Arguments were traded, insults flew. Most of it was a discussion about the page title. I'm glad that Joe Roe has now skilfully closed the heated debate with an excellent summary.
As the new title needs to "settle in", I'd like to propose a temporary moratorium on further rename discussions. Please kindly indicate your preferences from among:
|
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC datesorMarianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendartoRepublic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There has been a long-running slow-motion dispute on this page regarding the list of tour dates for the supporting album tour that ran from February 4 to July 22, 2023.
The project page, WP:CONCERT TOUR, says that for an article on a concert tour, " Neither of these pages are policy, but they leave gray the question of how to treat a concert tour that is arguably notable enough to have a separate article, but can arguably more concisely be presented to the reader as a section of an article on the album being promoted through this tour. BD2412 T 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping
| Do you support the enactment of WP:SCOPING as an official policy on Wikipedia? 9t5 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC datesorMarianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendartoRepublic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or{{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or{{notelist}} template (see the help page).
