W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Trumpetrep

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

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:Trumpetrep/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=2160|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}

CS1 error on Sturgeon's law ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Sturgeon's law ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Trumpetrep&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Sturgeon's law}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1355668139 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Culture of Boston ↗ - Deletion proposal comment



I saw the proposed deletion for the Culture of Boston ↗ article. For now, unless you have more specific ideas of what a city culture article should be, I am objecting to and have removed the proposal as the article is meant to be a sub-article or supplement to the main Boston ↗ article; otherwise the culture section would have overwhelmed the main city article.

I noticed you are in discussion concerning another city culture article at Culture of Wichita, Kansas ↗ which got me wondering what specific guidelines for city culture articles should be proposed as the articles I have run across are treated more like sub-articles than actual stand-alone articles. Pentawing<sup>Talk ↗</sup> 04:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, I spelled it out in the Wichita discussion ↗. There's no limit on what can be added to a "culture of (city)" article. It doesn't make sense to have an article of that type unless the entire culture has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources ↗.
:Otherwise, the door is open to absolutely anything under the sun. Just read the Boston article to see what's wrong with the premise. Most of it is unsourced, because people are just listing whatever comes to mind. The Pixies are from Boston, so let's add them to the "Performing Arts" section.
:And that's before we even deal with howlers like "Black culture in Boston is very colorful." Trumpetrep (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Sturgeon's law ↗ has failed



Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Sturgeon's law ↗ has <span class="nowrap">20px|alt=|link= ↗ </span>'''failed'''. See '''Talk:Sturgeon's law/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again.<!-- Template:GANotice |result=fail --> <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN</small> -- PresN (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for When the shepherd lost his sheep ↗


When the shepherd lost his sheep ↗ has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page ↗. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. - <span style="font-family: Monospace;">Dents</span> (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 03:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi, and thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of a page by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into :Equal temperament ↗. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move ↗", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history ↗, which is legally required for attribution ↗. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits ↗, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab ↗ at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu ↗ for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect ↗ from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves ↗ to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge ↗. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-c&pmove --> –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> (<span style="color:#0d0">d</span><span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span> ↗) 03:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for initiating a discussion. I've responded to your concerns at the article's Talk page. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Close Request



To dissuade any accusations of an improper close, I reverted your edit on Rimsky-Korsakov and left a closure request for the discussion on the talk page. In this instance, a neutral third-party can determine if there is consensus and will save everyone a lot of trouble. It is likely that consensus will be found by such a person, but best to go through the formalities just in case. Barbarbarty (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:Sounds good. It wasn't a formal process. So, it seemed innocuous enough to acknowledge the consensus that emerged. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:: Only now do I see that it wasn't a formal process. So there's also no chance of a formal close request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The close request is at Wikipedia:Closure requests ↗. Barbarbarty (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::::The discussion isn't technically an RFC, so it should at least be turned into one and publicized before a closure request is made. Shogeneral (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Wikipedia:Closure requests ↗ doesn't appear exclusive to requests for comment ↗. It describes itself as a tool for any uninvolved editor to "close a Wikipedia discussion". Despite Barbarbarty's thumb on the scale of the request ↗, it seems like a reasonable way to proceed. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

June music


{{User QAIbox
| image = White hydrangea, Idstein.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Today is the centenary of King Roger ↗, an opera by Karol Szymanowski ↗ who is pictured on the main page, - my story with the trailer of the performance I saw. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for this one. Neat piece of music. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

AfD


Saw your vote to delete here ↗, and just wanted to note a lot of effort went into cleaning up references (and finding some new ones, etc) New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes



Hey, just wanted to let you know, it probably isn’t a good idea to raise multiple infobox threads on multiple articles at once. The admins still have to check these threads because they can get contentious and as you know it only takes one person to object before you need consensus. At least wait until other Infobox discussions have closed before starting new ones, because I know it’s usually not common practice to open multiple at once. Barbarbarty (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
: (watching:) what can we do to stop thinking that infoboxes are contentious? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:I appreciate your concern. I'm unaware of a rule that requires administrators to check Talk pages. The last truly contentious discussion of this issue that I'm aware of occurred in 2023 at the Rimsky-Korsakov ↗ article. The most recent discussion at that page seemed reasonable. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:: The last discussion I noticed as more personal than factual (and based on plain wrong facts) was Gustav Mahler ↗, begun in 2024 and unresolved, but it is no reason to mark a whole topic as contentious that has proven not so over most of Wikipedia. It seems contentious only regarding very few (FA) articles by even fewer authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::That’s just objectively untrue, sorry. I think the recent ARBCOM decisions show this. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::I never said it’s a “rule.” It is just normally common practice to not open multiple RfCs at once. One of these reasons is that it is a contentious issue. Even just looking at the Ravel page right now, it’s pretty apparent for some editors at least. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::If there's a guideline against asking for multiple requests for comment at once, then it certainly makes sense to alert an editor who has done so instead of me. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I was speaking in a general sense of discussions related to this topic, and misspoke when I mentioned RfCs specifically. But again, as I said, it’s only common practice, and I only left my original comment, as you said, due to “concern.” I had no intention of conveying a “warning” or anything close to punitive. Barbarbarty (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::There seem to be infobox discussions taking place all the time at various places, rather than a common practice of holding one conversation at a time. I was surprised to learn about the Ravel discussion. I'd forgotten about Mahler. They just seem to be quite common.
:::::I do understand your concern, and your reasonable approach to the issue is heartening. The Arbitration Committee seems a separate piece that was primarily focused on human behavior. Infoboxes may have been the underlying issue, but the contretemps was really about how we treat each other.
:::::It's unclear if that decision broke a logjam, but it does seem like some of the dogmatism of the issue has faded. When I have asked about infoboxes at articles, it is genuinely just to prompt feedback and to allow the consensus to fall where it may. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)