User Talk: Danbloch

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age =2160
| archiveprefix =User talk:Danbloch/Archive
| numberstart =1
| maxarchsize =75000
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads =5
| format = %%i
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}}

Leigh Bardugo

So, like... really? Wanna talk about it? I'm lovin' Tricky Dick (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

: Sure. Your edit:
:1. changed a link target from Spanish and Portuguese Jews ↗ to Sephardi ↗. Either of these is fine.
:2. changed a link target from Litvaks ↗, which was correct, to Litvak ↗, which is a redirect which requires an extra step to get to Litvaks.
:3. changed "Jews" to "Jewish People" in two places, which isn't an improvement.
:So none of the changes were improvements, and some made the article worse. Why do you think they're desirable? Danbloch (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::I feel it can be dehumanizing to leave the word "people" out of categories of people. I'm lovin' Tricky Dick (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid I don't agree with you. "Spanish Jews", etc., is idiomatic English. "Spanish Jewish people", etc. isn't and sounds awkward. You can bring the issue up on the article's talk page if you want to pursue this. Danbloch (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Take a look at the article Jew (word) ↗.
:::::"{{tq|The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether}}"
::::That's why "Jewish People" is preferable to "Jews". Off and running (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::::However, in the case of this edit in question ↗, the addition of the word "People" is not an improvement because there is already a sub-categorization in front of the word "Jews", making the addition of the word "People" cumbersome. Off and running (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::That's fair, thanks. And that article goes on to say, {{tq|Even today some people are wary of its use, and prefer to use "Jewish"}} (with citations). I think it's nuanced though. Danbloch (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Colorado Apex ultimate frisbee team.png

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Logo of Colorado Apex ultimate frisbee team.png ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

:'''Tip:''' most logos are copyright free and can be uploaded to the commons with the template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>PD-textlogo ↗<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. The template can be used for logos for which the "logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text". Off and running (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

My edit to Help:Wikitext

I'd like to discuss your reversion of my edit to Help:Wikitext. Is this the right place to talk? Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:Either here or Help talk:Wikitext ↗ is fine. Danbloch (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion over on Generation Z talk page, serious allegations

Hey @Danbloch, it's me again. I apologize for the disturbance, but I wanted to ask for your opinion over on the Gen Z talk page? I left a ping with your name in the discussion. To summarize, the user Kapartem is making serious allegations about me as well as Nerd271, Some1, and Zillennial. Do you still agree with the current lead? Nerd271, Some1, and myself still have the same consensus since March, but I think it' s best to ask again for what the consensus is so that everyone is in the know-how as well because what Kapartem is saying is hurtful and serious. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Status quo ante

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent edits concerning this redirect.

The problem with linking Status quo ante ↗ directly to the list entry is that it leaves no room for a hatnote. It's plausible that a user seeking Status Quo Ante ↗ would arrive here by typing the lowercase expression, and not have any way of navigating to the intended page. I believe the edit I made best resolves this; what do you recommend? 162 etc. (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reply. If you look at List of Latin phrases (S)#status quo ante ↗, the current Status quo ante ↗, you'll see that it includes "For other uses, see Status Quo Ante ↗." If you don't think this is sufficient, you could put the hatnote in the table cell. Am I missing something? Danbloch (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::I don't think hatnotes are usually inserted mid-table in this way, but that is better than the previous version; I've made the edit. 162 etc. (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)