User Talk: SMcCandlish

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

{{User:SMcCandlish/Topicons}}
{{NoAutosign}}
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Verdana">
{{UserTalkReplyhere}}
{{Usertalkconcise}}
{{Wikipedia:TPS/banner}}
thumb|Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other. ↗

{{#ifexpr:{{PAGESIZE:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report|R}} > 1000|{{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report|align=left|duplicate=hide|time format=G:i n/j/Y}}|No RfA ↗s or RfB ↗s reported by Cyberbot I since {{#time:G:i n/j/Y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}}} (UTC)}}
{{divhide|width=70%|Template-edit requests, etc.}}
{{User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable}}
{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotalign=left}}
{{User talk:SMcCandlish/AdminNews}}
{{divhide|end}}
{{Cent|width=66%|compact=very|float=left}}
<div style="float: left; padding: 1em;">
Most recent poster here: {{REVISIONUSER}} (talk)

'''{{vanchor|Mini-toolbox}}:'''

My Wikimedia Library ↗ (journal access, etc.; to get your own, see WP:LIBRARY ↗)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Script ↗ (req. WP:AWB ↗ access and JWB installed or is just a normal redlink)

Special:LintErrors ↗

Hunt down abuse of {{tlnull|em}} for non-emphasis italics https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%2F%5C%7B%5C%7Bem%5C%7C%2F&searchToken=bhwe40hs37hif8qwcs4ljvusp ↗ — and {{tag|em|o}} https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%2F%5C%3C%5Cem%5C%3E%2F&searchToken=av8gofiskqoq8s29zds46hhex ↗

Move and redirect articles with slashes in their titles ↗ when feasible (i.e. when not proper names that require them)

NAC-at-ANRFC geekery to remember ↗

NAC-at-RM geekery to remember ↗

Ref consistency checker (use in preview or sandbox): {{tlx|ref info|Manx cat|style{{=}}float:right}}

Reliably regex ↗-match a single linebreak in wikicode (or elsewhere): <code>(\r\n|\r|\n)</code>

Helpful links related to WP:MEATBOT ↗, WP:COSMETICBOT ↗, and code cleanup: WP:EDITORFRIENDLY ↗ (a.k.a. WP:EDITORHOSTILE ↗), WP:COSMETIC ↗ (a.k.a. WP:SUBSTANTIVE ↗), WP:SPECTRUM ↗

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Article alerts}}

'''Other:'''

MW Editing team e-meetings ↗, /wikimedia.org/edit-tasktriage via Google Hangouts ↗ (Tuesdays, noon–12:30pm PDT = 20:00 UTC during DST, 19:00 otherwise, but often half an hour earlier).

MW Tech Advice e-meetings ↗, via IRC at {{Channel|wikimedia-tech}} (Wednesdays, 1–2pm PDT = 16:00–17:00 UTC ↗).

meta:Talk:Spam blacklist ↗ – global blacklist requests

</div>
{{clear}}
{|style="width: 99%;"
|style="vertical-align: top; width:50%;"| __TOC__
|style="vertical-align: top;"|{{User talk:SMcCandlish/Status}}
|style="vertical-align: top;"|{{User Signpost-subscription}}thumb|350px|left|Please stay in the top 3 segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement ↗. ↗
|style="vertical-align: top;"|{{User talk:SMcCandlish/Archivebox}}
|}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive index|mask=User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive <#>|leading zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive index template}}
{{clear}}

=Old stuff to resolve eventually=

Cueless billiards

{{Unresolved|1=Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.}}
{{collapse top}}
Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:Crud ↗ fits for sure. And if the variant in it is sourceable, I'm sure some military editor will fork it into a separate article eventually. I think at least some variants of bar billiards ↗ are played with hands and some bagatelle ↗ split-offs probably were, too (Shamos goes into loads of them, but I get them all mixed up, mostly because they have foreign names). And there's bocce billiards ↗, article I've not written yet. Very fun game. Kept my sister and I busy for 3 hours once. Her husband (Air Force doctor) actually plays crud on a regular basis; maybe there's a connection. She beat me several times, so it must be from crud-playing. Hand pool ↗ might be its own article eventually. Anyway, I guess it depends upon your "categorization politics". Mine are pretty liberal - I like to put stuff into a logical category as long as there are multiple items for it (there'll be two as soon as you're done with f.b., since we have crud ↗), and especially if there are multiple parent categories (that will be the case here), and especially especially if the split parallels the category structure of another related category branch (I can't think of a parallel here, so this criterion of mine is not a check mark in this case), and so on. A bunch of factors really. I kind of wallow in that stuff. Not sure why I dig the category space so much. Less psychodrama, I guess. >;-) In my entire time here, I can only think of maybe one categorization decision I've made that got nuked at CfD ↗. And I'm a pretty aggressive categorizer, too; I totally overhauled :Category:Pinball ↗ just for the heck of it and will probably do the same to :Category:Darts ↗ soon.
:PS: I'm not wedded to the "cueless billiards" name idea; it just seemed more concise than "cueless developments from cue sports" or whatever.— '''<big>SMcCandlish</big>''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::I have no "categorization politics". It's not an area that I think about a lot or has ever interested me so it's good there are people like you. If there is to be a category on this, "cueless billiards" seems fine to me. By the way, just posted Yank Adams ↗ as an adjunct to the finger billiards article I started.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Cool; I'd never even heard of him. This one looks like a good DYK; just the fact that there was Finger Billiards World Championship contention is funky enough, probably. You still citing that old version of Shamos? You really oughta get the 1999 version; it can be had from Amazon for cheap and has a ''bunch'' of updates. I actually put my old version in the recycle bin as not worth saving. Heh. PS: You seen Stein & Rubino 3rd ed.? I got one for the xmas before the one that just passed, from what was then a really good girlfriend. >;-) It's a-verra, verra nahce. Over 100 new pages, I think (mostly illustrations). — '''<big>SMcCandlish</big>''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the ''Blue Book of Pool Cues'' too for under $200 total. Here it is for $160 ↗, plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — '''<big>SMcCandlish</big>''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::It's not IPs they're logging, it's your credit card. You have to give them one in order to get the trial so that they can automatically charge you if you miss the cancellation deadline. Regarding the Blue Book, of all these books, that's the one that get's stale, that is, if you use it for actual quotes, which I do all the time, both for answer to questions and for selling, buying, etc. Yeah I start procrastinating too. I did all that work on Mingaud and now I can't get myself to go back. I also did reams of research on Hurricane Tony Ellin (thugh I found so little; I really felt bad when he died; I met him a few times, seemed like a really great guy), Masako Katsura and others but still haven't moved on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, the credit card. I'll have to see if the PayPal plugin has been updated to work with the new Firefox. If so, that's our solution - it generates a new valid card number every time you use it (they always feed from your single PayPal account). — '''<big>SMcCandlish</big>''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::{{Anchor|doh}}PayPal Plugin ''ist kaput''. Some banks now issue credit card accounts that make use of virtual card numbers, but mine's not one of them. — '''SMcCandlish''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a newspaperarchive.com ↗ three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sad...

How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:Reading stuff from that era, it's also amazing how important billiards (in the three-ball sense) was back then, with sometimes multiple-page stories in newspapers about each turn in a long match, and so on. It's like snooker is today in the UK. PS: I saw that you found evidence of a billiards stage comedy there. I'd never heard of it! — '''<big>SMcCandlish</big>''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::Jackpot ↗. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Nice find! — '''SMcCandlish''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Some more notes on Crystalate ↗

{{Unresolved|1=New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.}}
{{collapse top}}
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester ↗ in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.http://www.worcesterporcelainmuseum.org.uk/uploaded/documents/7-Worcester-factory-ownership.pdf ↗; info about making records:http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201009/2101665071.html ↗; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding ↗:http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/warning-hits-crystalate-1.617980 ↗; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate ↗; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:No5 Balls.html ↗. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — '''SMcCandlish''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
::I've worked most of it in. Fences&Windows 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Cool! From what I can tell, entirely different parties held the trademark in different markets. I can't find a link between Crystalate Mfg. Co. Ltd. (mostly records, though billiard balls early on) and the main billiard ball mfr. in the UK, who later came up with "Super Crystalate". I'm not sure the term was even used in the U.S. at all, despite the formulation having been originally patented there. — '''SMcCandlish''' Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs ↗. 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

WP:SAL ↗

{{Unresolved|1=Not done yet, last I looked.}}
{{collapse top}}
No one has actually {{em|objected}} to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL ↗ to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST ↗, which is where all of WP:SAL ↗'s style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists ↗ with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — '''SMcCandlish'''   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. ↗ 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
:I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. '''SilkTork''' '''✔Tea time''' 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright

{{Unresolved|1=Need to fix William A. Spinks ↗, etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.}}
{{Collapse top}}
That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ ↗? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah, I did a bunch of archiving yesterday. This page was HUGE. It'll get there again. I'd forgotten MCQ existed. Can you please add it to the DAB hatnote at top of and "See also" at bottom of WP:COPYRIGHT ↗? Its conspicuous absence is precisely why I ened up at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright ↗! Haven't seen your balkline response yet; will go look. — '''SMcCandlish'''  Talk⇒ ɖ<big>⊝</big>כ⊙þ Contrib. ↗ 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Hee Haw

{{Unresolved|1=Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation. In the intervening years, we've settled on natural not parenthetic disambiguation, and that standardized breeds get capitalized, but that's about it.}}
{{collapse top}}
Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers {{em|and}} editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. Landrace ↗ has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and breed ↗ not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What {{em|is}} happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether pig Latin ↗ is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys – and the naming form that took, i.e. Poitou donkey ↗ not Poitou (donkey) ↗, I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — '''SMcCandlish'''  Talk⇒ ɖ<big>⊝</big>כ⊙þ Contrib. ↗ 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace ↗ which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breed ↗ or breed ↗ or http://www.thefreedictionary.com/breed ↗. I think you and I agree that the Palomino ↗ horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse ↗ who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the Landrace ↗ article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split Natural breed ↗ out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a ''traditional breed'', though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — '''SMcCandlish'''  Talk⇒ ɖ<big>⊝</big>כ⊙þ Contrib. ↗ 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — '''SMcCandlish'''  Talk⇒ ɖ<big>⊝</big>כ⊙þ Contrib. ↗ 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to landrace ↗ now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Aye, it's on my to-do list. — '''SMcCandlish'''  Talk⇒ ɖ<big>⊝</big>כ⊙þ Contrib. ↗ 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians).

::::The good thing about breeds wrt Wikipedia is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Wikipedia to do so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::I have been reluctant to use landrace ↗ much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before wikipedia either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between selective breeding ↗ and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like Kiger Mustang ↗, which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, Chiweenie ↗s? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::::The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of corn ↗ growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that MRSA ↗ is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through {{em|mostly}} natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the St Johns water dog ↗ and Maine Coon cat ↗ are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — '''SMcCandlish'''  Talk⇒ ɖ<big>⊝</big>כ⊙þ Contrib. ↗ 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Yep. — '''SMcCandlish'''  Talk⇒ ɖ<big>⊝</big>כ⊙þ Contrib. ↗ 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Redundant sentence?

{{Unresolved|1=Work to integrate WP:NCFLORA ↗ and WP:NCFAUNA ↗ stuff into MOS:ORGANISMS ↗ not completed yet? Seems to be mostly done, other than fixing up the breeds section, after that capitalization RfC a while back.}}
{{collapse top}}
The sentence at MOS:LIFE ↗ "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed?

There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names ↗ for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

:#I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely {{em|different}} groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
:# I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS ↗, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx ↗ or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx ↗, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization therehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynx&oldid=77254811 ↗, and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☺ ☏ ¢ ↗ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::#Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
:::#I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "''Canna''" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
::::#Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
::::#Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☺ ☏ ¢ ↗ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☺ ☏ ¢ ↗ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Note to self on WP:WikiProject English language ↗

{{Unresolved|I think I did MOST of this already ...}}
{{collapse top}}
Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language ↗ with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☺ ☏ ¢ ↗ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Excellent mini-tutorial

{{Unresolved|Still need to do that essay page. Work in assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=879431792 this ↗ material, too.}}
{{collapse top}}
Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this ↗ - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here ↗ (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here ↗, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Carcharoth}} Thanks. I need to copy that into an essay page. As far as I know, the concepts are not clearly covered in any of those places, nor clearly enough even at Help:CS1 ↗ (which is dense and overlong as it is). The e-book matters bear some researching. I'm very curious whether particular formats (Nook, etc.) paginate consistently between viewers. For Web-accessible ones, I would think that the page numbering that appears in the Web app is good enough if it's consistent (e.g., between a PC and a smart phone) when the reader clicks the URL in the citation. I suppose one could also use {{para|at}} to provide details if the "page" has to be explained in some way. I try to rely on better-than-page-number locations when possible, e.g. specific entries in dictionaries and other works with multiple entries per page (numbered sections in manuals, etc.), but for some e-books this isn't possible – some are just continuous texts. One could probably use something like {{para|at|in the paragraph beginning "The supersegemental chalcolithic metastasis is ..." about 40% into the document}}, in a pinch. I guess we do need to figure this stuff out since such sources are increasingly common. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☺ ☏ ¢ ↗ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::Yes (about figuring out how to reference e-books), though I suspect existing (non-WP) citation styles have addressed this already (no need to re-invent the wheel). This is a slightly different case, though. It is a digitisation of an existing (physical) book that has no page numbers. If I had the book in front of me (actually, it was only published as a single copy, so it is not a 'publication' in that traditional sense of many copies being produced), the problem with page numbers would still exist. I wonder if the 'digital viewer' should be thought of as a 'via' thingy? In the same way that (technically) Google Books and archive.org digital copies of old books are just re-transmitting, and re-distributing the material (is wikisource also a 'via' sort of thing?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Carcharoth}} Ah, I see. I guess I would treat it as a {{para|via}}, and same with WikiSource, which in this respect is essentially like Google Books or Project Gutenberg. I think your conundrum has come up various times with arXiv papers, that have not been paginated visibly except in later publication (behind a journal paywall and not examined). Back to the broader matter: Some want to treat WikiSource and even Gutenberg as re{{em|publishers}}, but I think that's giving them undue editorial credit and splitting too fine a hair. Was thinking on the general unpaginated and mis-paginated e-sources matter while on the train, and came to the conclusion that for a short, unpaginated work with no subsections, one might give something like {{para|at|in paragraph 23}}, and for a much longer one use the {{para|at|in the paragraph beginning "..."}} trick. A straight up {{para|pages|82–83}} would work for an e-book with hard-coded meta-data pagination that is consistent between apps/platforms and no visual pagination. On the other hand, use the visual pagination in an e-book that has it, even if it doesn't match the e-book format's digital pagination, since the pagination in the visual content would match that of a paper copy; one might include a note that the pagination is that visible in the content if it conflicts with what the e-book reader says (this comes up a lot with PDFs, for one thing - I have many that include cover scans, and the PDF viewers treat that as p. 1, then other front matter as p. 2, etc., with the content's p. 1 being something like PDF p. 7). — '''SMcCandlish''' ☺ ☏ ¢ ↗ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

WP:MEDMOS ↗

{{Unresolved|1=Go fix the WP:{{var|FOO}} shortcuts to MOS:{{var|FOO}} ones, to match practice at other MoS pages. This only applies to the MoS section there; like WP:SAL ↗, part of that page is also a content guideline that should not have MOS: shortcuts.}}
{{collapse top}}
You had previously asked that protection be lowered on WP:MEDMOS ↗ which was not done at that time. I have just unprotected the page and so if you have routine update edits to make you should now be able to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk ↗) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks. I don't remember what it was, but maybe it'll come back to me. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 12:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
::Now I remember. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 06:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Ooh...potential WikiGnoming ↗ activity...

{{Unresolved|1=Do some of this when I'm bored?}}
{{collapse top}}
{{yo|SMcCandlish}}

I stumbled upon {{cat|Editnotices whose targets are redirects}} and there are ~100 pages whose pages have been moved, but the editnotices are still targeted to the redirect page. Seems like a great, and sort of fun, WikiGnoming ↗ activity for a template editor such as yourself. I'd do it, but I'm not a template editor. Not sure if that's really your thing, though. ;-)

Cheers,
 --'''Doug Mehus''''' T''·''C ↗'' 22:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:Argh. I would've hoped some bot fixed that kind of stuff. I'll consider it, but it's a lot of work for low benefit (the page names may be wrong, but the redirs still get there), and it's been my experience that a lot of editnotices (especially in mainspace) are PoV-pushing crap that needs to be deleted anyway. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
::I'm going to pass for the nonce, {{U|Dmehus}}. Working on some other project (more fun than WP is sometimes). I'll let it sit here with {{tlx|Unresolved}} on it, in case I get inspired to work on it some, but it might be a long time. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Note to self

{{Unresolved|Cquote stuff ...}}
{{collapse top}}
Don't forget to deal with: Template talk:Cquote#Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2020 ↗. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Now this

{{Unresolved|Breed disambiguation again ...}}
{{collapse top}}
Not sure the ping went through, so noting here. Just spotted where a now-blocked user moved a bunch of animal breed articles back to parenthetical disambiguation from natural disambiguation. As they did it in October and I'm only catching it now, I only moved back two just in case there was some kind of consensus change. The equine ones are definitely against project consensus, the rest are not my wheelhouse but I'm glad to comment. Talk:Campine_chicken#Here_we_go_again ↗. Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Montanabw}} Argh. Well, this is easy to fix with a request to mass-revert undiscussed moves, at the subsection for that at WP:RMTR ↗. Some admin will just fix it all in one swoop. While I have the PageMover bit, and could do it myself as a technical possibility, I would run afoul of WP:INVOLVED ↗ in doing so. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Montanabw}} Did this get fixed yet? If not, I can look into it. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

PGP

{{Unresolved|Gotta put my geek hat on and fix this.}}
FYI, it looks like your key has expired. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 ↗ 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
:Aiee! Thanks, I'll have to generate a new one when I have time to mess around with it. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

German article on houndstooth, Border tartan, and related patterns

{{Unresolved|Considering ...}}
de:Rapport (Textil) ↗ is an interesting approach, and we don't seem to have a corresponding sort of article. Something I might approach at some point. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Post-holidays note to self

{{Unresolved|I need to come up with a better to-do list kind of thing on here, and actually use it instead of letting it turn moribund.}}
{{collapse top}}
Something to deal with quickly:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#TupinologyWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Tupinology ↗

Need to stop putting this off; will probably only take 10 minutes.

Ongoing:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page ↗

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science ↗

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Creating policy to support an argument ↗ – removed incorrect stuff about tooltips, and MOS:TOOLTIP ↗ may also need an update

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (lists)#Fixing disambiguation confusion ↗

Several things appear to have stalled out over the holidays:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#JOBTITLES simplification proposal ↗

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF ↗

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated ↗

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Systematic mass edits to hidden category dates ↗

Template talk:Infobox person#Placement of "Sir" ↗

* See also 2022: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2022 archive#Request for Comment: MOS:SIR, Knighthoods & Damehoods are name changing titles, much the same as peerages, should the MOS be updated to reflect this? ↗

Template talk:Infobox person#Death cause parameter ↗

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only ↗

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A worsening MOS:DASH issue (causing mounting WP:CONSISTENT problems) ↗

* Talk:Carson–Newman University#Requested move 21 January 2024 ↗

Some of these may need to be restarted as RfCs.

See also:

Talk:Cosimo III de' Medici#Requested move 15 December 2023 ↗ – WP:NCPEER ↗'s "rule" calling for long-ass page titles like Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany ↗ got discarded like chaff; this may be significant in addressing WP:PEERAGE ↗'s and WP:ROYALTY ↗'s other attempts to use WP:FAITACCOMPLI ↗ to impose "their own rules" (WP:CONLEVEL ↗ failure).

Forgot about this one for a long time (need to merge the NC material out of MOS:COMICS ↗ into WP:NCCOMICS ↗):

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)#Merge proposed: WP:NCCOMICS to MOS:COMICS (which is already ~50% NC material) ↗

An article still using deprecated WP:PARENTHETICAL ↗ referencing of the {{tlx|harv}} style to use as a cleanup testbed:

Henge ↗

— '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 16:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

Your user scripts

{{unresolved|At least one of the scripts needs more work.}}
{{collapse top}}
might benefit more users if they were also listed at Wikipedia:User scripts/List ↗. That's the go-to place where I get all my scripts from... '''Huggums''''''537'''voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 05:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, though I think they still need a bit more tweaking (even aside from one lacking the vertical formatting feature entirely). It's stuff I worked on obsessively for about a month straight, but have been doing other stuff since then. Takes a while to get back into such things. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

 
----
 

=Current threads=

Happy New Year, SMcCandlish!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''SMcCandlish''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 '''''Volten''''''''001''' ☎ 03:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC) 
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} '''''Volten''''''''001''' ☎ 03:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Unit conversions - MoS

Hi, do you have a quick answer to this MoS question: As a non-scientist I am constantly frustrated by general articles written by scientists only for scientists to understand. Case in question, temperatures given only in Kelvin on articles of general interest. Are idiots like me expected to do their own conversion to units they can relate to such as °F and °C? Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
:Units should generally be converted, when they are on a scale that is sensible for the target unit. Small Kelvin measurments are not going to be useful in F or C, as light-years will not be in mi or km. But the "more scientific" unit should be linked to at first occurrence in the article, so someone not very familiar with the unit can get a better sense of it easily. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 03:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
:::PS: To clarify what I meant: To the typical reader, {{nowrap|-0.00000031 °F}} and {{nowrap|-0.0000031 °F}} are nearly indistinguishable and about equally unrelatable, despite being different from each other by a factor of 10; and same with {{nowrap|38,442,839,277,250 Km}} versus {{nowrap|3,844,283,927,725 Km}}. So "extreme conversions" of this sort from simple Kelvin or light-year measurements are not actually helpful to readers. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 10:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I understood. I was simply referring to the annoying instances in such (hypothetical) cases where a school kid or someone stupid like me is looking up the temperature on Venus (which ''is'' converted) to be told in Kelvin when they could far more easily relate to something like 464 °C; 867 °F on the other planets. Not using our excellent conversion templates is either laziness or scientific snobbery ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::That, and K isn't a particularly appropriate unit for something that equates to +464 °C, anyway. K is most appropriate for very, very, very cold, near absolute zero. (Or maybe K has very, very hot uses, too, but I don't run into that, as far as I recall. If so, maybe convert {{em|to}} K, for the few who would want it.) — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 19:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Use X English ↗ nominated for merger with Template:Use English variant ↗

Hi there,

I am inviting you to discuss the merger at TfD because you are the author of {{tl|Use X English}}. Your comments are welcome.
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_13#Template:Use_American_English ↗ Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs ↗) 09:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion ↗ of :Subrace ↗

left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :Subrace ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗ because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''"subrace" does not occur in either Race (biology) ↗ or Fantasy trope ↗, and deletion would allow the Search function to reveal uninhibited results (45 other mentions in Enwiki).'''</blockquote>

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary ↗ or on the article's talk page ↗.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion based on established criteria ↗.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion ↗ of the article at any time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

January music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Hazel in bloom near Leine, Döhren.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Thank you for improving article quality in January! - 20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor ↗ (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13 ↗, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 72

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> <div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px"> right|175px ↗</div> <div style = "line-height: 1.2"> '''The Wikipedia Library''': ''Books & Bytes'' Issue 72, November–December 2025 </div> <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">

Renewed partnerships

Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

<big>'''Read the full newsletter ↗'''</big> </div> </div> Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ↗ on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to :User:SMcCandlish ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

February music

{{User QAIbox
| image = Crocus meadow, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Thank you for improving article quality in February! - My story today is again about Percy Grainger ↗ (FA by Brian Boulton), this time with a video that surprised me. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Today's main page ↗ features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Continental toy spaniel (disambiguation) ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on :Continental toy spaniel (disambiguation) ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because it is:

a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic ↗);

a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or

a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and removing the speedy deletion tag.   Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
:Good to take out the trash. :-) — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 06:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 73

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> <div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px"> right|175px ↗</div> <div style = "line-height: 1.2"> '''The Wikipedia Library''': ''Books & Bytes'' Issue 73, January–February 2026 </div> <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">

Four new partnerships

User survey thanks

<big>'''Read the full newsletter ↗'''</big> </div> </div> Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ↗ on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to :User:SMcCandlish ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

March thanks

{{User QAIbox
| image = Blackthorn with peacock butterfly, Niederauroff.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Thank you for improving article quality in March! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of :Template:BCA 2006 ↗

{{Resbox|Done}}
30px|link=|alt= ↗ :Template:BCA 2006 ↗ has been listed for discussion ↗, which may result in the template being merged ↗ or deleted ↗ by consensus ↗. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at '''the entry on the Templates for discussion page''' ↗. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

<div class="user-block uw-aeblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt= ↗To enforce an arbitration ↗ decision, and for edit warring in violation of your topic ban, you have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing Wikipedia for a period of '''1 week'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks ↗ (specifically this section ↗) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template ↗ on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email ↗), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. House '''Blaster''' ↗ (talk • he/they) 20:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC) <div class="sysop-show"><hr/>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators ↗ regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes ↗"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</div></div>

:{{ping|HouseBlaster}} Fair enough, in part. My poor memory of the T-ban was that it was the intersection of article titles and capitalization (i.e. discussions of how/whether to capitalize in a title), but on a re-read ↗ I see that it's for discussions in "the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area" more broadly. My bad.
:
:However: A1) Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, but this one prevents nothing that it should prevent, only the occasional, mostly minor, constructive edits to a wide variety of topics that I've been making this year, with my limited WP time these days. Preventing me from even being able to fix typos for a week serves no purpose of any kind. Please consider this an informal unblock request to the blocking admin. I do clearly understand the bounds of my T-ban at this point. (What I raise in A3 below as a potential argument isn't an argument I'm actually making or would rely on; it's just a side consideration.) I'll studiously avoid further involvement in titles-related discussions even if it's a strictly maintenance-related matter (unless/until the scope of the remedy is narrowed by WP:ARCA ↗ or the restriction appealed.)
:
:A2) There was no editwar; all three involved editors reverted only one time each, the other edits were compromise attempts and tweaks, and the matter thereafter went to talk at User talk:Wbm1058. This is frankly just normal editing and conflict resolution, and your involvement wasn't needed. Everyone would have just forgotten about this and moved on, and a warning/reminder about the actual terms of my T-ban would have been sufficient. I regret that the discussion got slightly testy (in revtalk), though I've taken steps to try to smoothing things over in user talk.
:
:A3) The nature of the dispute would not have changed in any way if it had been about any other guideline subjects, since the dispute was solely about how best to do cross-references between two different kinds of guidelines (i.e. using the "See also" section versus creating a potentially confusing topical section within the wrong kind of guideline for that topic; there could also be other approaches like {{tlx|crossref}}). That the topics in this case happened to be article titles in part and MoS in part (though not capitalization at all) was simply blind coincidence. A case could be made that this was topic-independent maintenance editing, since the solution would have been exactly the same if we needed to cross-reference between, say, academic biography notability and academic biography source-reliability guidelines, or any other mismatch between two categories of guidelines (or policies, for that matter).
:
:B1) You've cited WP:3RRNO#EX3 ↗ in reverting me at WP:NCCOMP ↗ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350530693 ↗. That policy clause permits, when it seems necessary, reversion in excess of normal 3RR limits (which simply isn't applicable here) if the edits to be reverted were by a banned (topic-banned or otherwise) user. It is not blanket license to robotically revert edits by such users without regard to whether doing so in a particular case would actually be an improvement. As explained in great detail in my edit summaries and at Wbm1058's user talk, the version I provided is more appropriate.
:
:B2) Even if it were not, your blanket revert clobbered unrelated grammar and link-template formatting improvements. Please just unrevert, or at bare minimum reinstate the improvements that do not pertain to the dispute that arose.
:
:Given that the dispute seems to have been a foray into short-term miscommunication, and {{U|Wbm1058}} has raised no objections to my more in-depth explanation in {{pronoun|Wbm1058|poss}} user talk, I'm skeptical that even Wbm1058 would disagree with this, though of course I can't put words in {{pronoun|Wbm1058|pos}} e-mouth.
:
:I won't say anything further pertaining to WP:NCCORP ↗ in particular, since my involvement in it (for now) even in a topic-independent maintenance manner was a T-ban problem to begin with, though I did not get that at the time. It wasn't intentional, and I'll avoid it happening again. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 11:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
::I think only one week is incredibly lenient for edit warring (check) on a guideline (check) in violation of your topic ban (check). It was indeed an edit war; you did repeatedly revert one another—edits do not need to be reverted in whole to be counted as a revert. Wbm was not edit warring because their reverts are exempt under 3RRNO#EX3, which applies to all edit warring, not just the three-revert rule. I also can't say that asking me to make an edit to a page you are topic banned from is within the bounds of BANEX. Given you don't seem to understand that you were edit warring and don't understand the bounds of BANEX, I think the block is still serving a legitimate purpose of {{tq|deter[ring] the continuation of present, disruptive behavior}}. I decline to lift this block. You may appeal it using the instructions above, or you can simply wait it out. Best, House '''Blaster''' ↗ (talk • he/they) 22:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I'll just wait. I have plenty of other things to do with my time this week, and I've gotten allergic to wikipolitical drama. But I have to observe that refusal to even reinstitute obvious grammar fixes (which are a topic-independent matter) simply because of a disciplinary rule pertaining to who first made them is the sort of robotic bureaucracy that has been driving people away from editing here. When a project and its leadership care more about keeping people in line and following internal pseudo-judicial rules to the letter than about the quality of project output, why should anyone continue to be involved in it? — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 01:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::PS: I do not agree with your analysis above in several respects. Wbm1058 apparently had no knowlege of my relevant restriction at the time, so his revert of me had nothing to do with 3RRNO#EX3 (even if one might argue to apply it retroactively, were Webm1058 to be accused of editwarring). The "Wbm was not edit warring" part is correct, but because {{em|it was not an editwar}}. While it is correct that "edits do not need to be reverted in whole to be counted as a revert", this is applicable when a partial-revert or not-quite-revert edit has the intent or effect of a revert to subvert the intent of the party being quasi-reverted and as if to try to escape 3RR. Good-faith, constructive attempts at arriving at compromise/consensus do not qualify (and can't, or editorial progress would not be practical and could not happen except via non-editing process).
:::
:::Your claim that "you [plural] did repeatedly revert one another" is demonstrably false. The sequence of events is exactly thus:
:::#I merged material out of an inappropriate guideline location to an appropriate one several years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1189367025 ↗.
:::#Wbm1058 belatedly reverted this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28companies%29&diff=1350243019&oldid=1343790564 ↗, rather out of the blue, and seemingly due to confusion about where the relevant guideline material now lives (despite that arguably being clear from my original edit summary). This was a revert by Wbm1058, but pre-dispute (and that it was a revert of old material by {{em|me}} in particular is just coincidental.) It was not and could not be an #EX3 matter, since the material being reverted pre-dated my T-ban.
:::#{{U|IceWelder}} reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350243019 ↗ Wbm1058's revert (and provided another pointer to the current location of the guidance Wbm1058 cared about); this was IceWelder's only edit in the entire matter; also not an #EX3 matter, since Wbm1058 has no T-ban.
:::#Wbm1058 then proceeded with a good-faith and (but for formatting/positioning) generally constructive compromise edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350303864 ↗ (plus some tweaking to it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350344568 ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350345200 ↗). The unmistakable intent was to create an explicit cross-reference from the one guideline to the other. An argument potentially could kinda-sorta be made that this was in some vague sense a partial-revert of IceWelder, but that would be a weak argument given the intent of this set of 3 edits by Wbm1058 (which again are not an #EX3 matter, since they are not reverting, in whole or in part, anything I did post T-ban or anything pertaining to anyone with a T-ban).
:::#My mistake began here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350347159 ↗; I made an edit I should not have per my T-ban, which I did not correctly remember the scope of at that moment. This edit did not in any way go against the intent of either Wbm1058 or IceWelder, and clearly {{em|agreed with}} Wbm1058's intent to cross-reference, it just did so in what I argued to be a more appropriate format/spot. (And I also made some grammar and template-formatting fixes, unrelated.) This was not a revert, either literally or in spirt, but a good-faith attempt to improve Wbm1058's contribution without undoing the substance or intent of it.
:::#My edit-summary wording in that apparently either irritated or confused Wbm1058 (or both at once), resulting in Wbm1058's kind of testy explicit revert here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350483655 ↗. This was Wbm1058's first revert after the existence of the dispute. While there's no evidence it was intended as an #EX3 revert (Wbm1058 indicates no knowledge of my T-ban until after your blocking action), it would at least retroactively be covered by #EX3, so wouln't constitute an edit-warring revert even if one wanted to include the first relevant edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28companies%29&diff=1350243019&oldid=1343790564 ↗ by Wbm1058 as a revert "within" the dispute (which it arguably wasn't; it was a edit, incidentally a revert in form, which {{em|led to}} the dispute arising, between Wbm1058 and IceWelder, and without my involvement until my later caring about the form/location of Wbm1058's {{lang|la|post hoc}} cross-reference). It's important here that no one among the three parties has disagreed with Wbm1058 on the substance/intent, of including some such cross-reference, and no one post-IceWelder has reverted the inclusion of one (either directly or in a skirting, not-quite-a-revert manner).
:::#My error continued here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)&diff=next&oldid=1350519275 ↗, in explicitly reverting Wbm1058's revert, with an explanation why. Again, I wasn't clearly remembering the scope of my T-ban, so should not have done this, but it was the first edit I made in this that had anything of the character of a revert.
:::#Rather than continue at that page at all, I opened discussion at Wbm1058's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWbm1058&diff=1350532793&oldid=1350366016 ↗ to try to smooth things over. That's normally a very appropriate and desirable thing to do, though here it was technically part of the same T-ban violation due to me misremembering the T-ban details. Regardless, no new drama materialized from doing so, and it seems to have been helpful given Wbm1058's material below.
:::#Everything would have been fine from here, though I should have received a warning/reminder about my T-ban from you (HouseBlaster) or another admin, perhaps even a 24-hour "just in case" block if there were actual doubt whether I would cease my disputation at that T-ban-covered guideline page. Instead, you took sides in what appears to have become an already resolved dispute by that point (more like a pseudo-dispute, based on miscommunication) and reverted me entirely. While that can be excused on a technicality under #EX3, it was poor judgment because it ignored all rationales for every aspect of the edit you reverted (the ones pertinent to the dispute-related guideline content, and the unrelated grammar, etc., fixes). So, it was simply not a construcive action on your part, in any way. (A week-long punitive block isn't either, but I can live with it.) Cf. WP:BRV ↗: "This [i.e. #EX3 and related material] does not mean that edits {{em|must}} be reverted just because they were made in violation of a block or ban (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos ... can be allowed to stand."
:::
:::Ergo, none of the three editors involved in this dispute engaged in editwarring. Wbm1058 made either zero or one revert that counts as one (depending on whether Wbm1058's first edit in the matter is considered within or just leading up to the dispute), IceWelder made one revert, and I made one revert. All other edits by all the parties were good-faith and (other than arguably yours) constuctive efforts at compromise and consensus building, all toward the same goal of cross-referencing two guidelines.
:::
:::Finally, my pointing all this out, including suggesting you reverse certain of your decisions, is not itself a T-ban violation as you suggested, because I'm contesting your {{em|administrator}} (not content-editor) actions in regards to me, and doing so on my talk page where that belongs (outside of AE or AN or ArbCom). It necessarily involves meta-discussion of and analysis of the T-ban-related context and of your and my and other parties' actions in relation to the dispute you've blocked me over. This is explicitly exempt from being a T-ban violation, per WP:BANEX ↗. (If you wanted to make the argument that your blanket-revert decision at the guideline page was a content-editor choice, then that would make you WP:INVOLVED ↗ in the content dispute, which would invalidate the block you made right after becoming involved. Can't have it both ways.)
:::{{em|If}} I had the stomach for internal WP pissing-contest process-wonkery, I would go to the mat about this at AE/AN, because an admin should have a better handle on the relevant policies, actually bother to examine the sequence and nature of events, and exercise better judgment about appropriateness of blanket reversion of multiple sorts of edits (not to mention unnecessary and punitive-looking block length). But I would rather stab myself in the face than spend hours and hours over several days arguing with people at a dramaboard. (It's also been my experience that any time someone from "MoS circles" is challenging a block, what happens is a multi-party stall tactic until the block length has run its course, even when the blocked party is correct on the merits. Its happened to me before and to others such as Dick_Lyon in recent memory. I have better things to do with my time than piss against the wind.) — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 08:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:::PS: It's also noteworthy that there was no corresponding WP:AE ↗ request regarding me; the block was imposed as a "drive-by" action by HouseBlaster without either careful examination by him or any consultation with anyone else. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 12:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Any admin can unilaterally enforce any Arbitration sanction or enact any sanction from the WP:STANDARDSET ↗ of CTOP remedies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I know, but it's further evidence of lack of admin dilligence in this particular case. Likely a moot point since the block's already expired, but I prefer to annotate such things fully in case it comes up again later. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 12:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Non-administrative side matters

I reinstituted your obvious grammar fixes. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:Thankee. :-) — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 06:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
The concept of stating the legal name in the lead sentence was established by a 2006 poll: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)/poll ↗. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|Wbm1058}} Right. I don't think there's been any disagreement about this, only about how best to format a cross-ref. from one guideline type to another. :-) — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 06:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 4 § Artefacts ↗

{{Resbox|Done}}
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 4 § Artefacts ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Inviting a look in...

{{Resbox|Done}}
at this "Cite check" template Talk page ↗, where you have previously been of editorial help. Moments ago, I added a request for a couple of possible edits to that template help page. (P.S. Love the Mrrrow!) Cheers. ~2026-27024-39 ↗ (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:The respondent who beat me to it is correct about procedures. I commented in support of the copyedit. I'm skeptical about the de-protection idea, but RFP admins will look into it. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 06:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

{{Resbox|Done}}

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink| Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 7#Teresa (nun) + Teresa (missionary) }}''' until a consensus is reached.  𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Language-notability guidelines

{{Resbox|Done}}
Hi. In case you're not watching, I started a thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Proposed notability guidelines ↗. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:Commented there in partial support of the idea, and addressing some disagreements. — '''SMcCandlish''' ☏ ¢ ↗ 😼 06:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Notification of closed amendment request

A amendment request ↗ in which you were a party has been closed and archived. This is only a notification, and no action is needed on your part. EggRoll97 (talk ↗) 22:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

May thanks

{{User QAIbox
| image = Park near Lutheran church, Sopot, pansies.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Thank you for improving article quality in May! - Today: Felicity Lott ↗. If you have little time, just give me a click ;) - If you have more, see her story. If you have more, listen to her singing Friendly Vision ↗. If you have more, listen until she sings the word "peace" (Frieden), floating up high, serenely. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

<section begin="announcement-content" />
I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ↗. You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta ↗, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗)<section end="announcement-content" />

Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 74

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> <div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px"> right|175px ↗</div> <div style = "line-height: 1.2"> '''The Wikipedia Library''': ''Books & Bytes'' Issue 74, March–April 2026 </div> <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">

New partnership: Swissdox

User survey results

<big>'''Read the full newsletter ↗'''</big> </div> </div> Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ↗ on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to :User:SMcCandlish ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mosconi Cup logo.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Mosconi Cup logo.jpg ↗'''. 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) 17:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:Category:Glossaries of wine ↗ has been nominated for merging

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Glossaries of wine ↗ has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. Whonting (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)