Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 30 November 2021

• New messages go at the bottom.
• If you have been redirected here from another project or language, please leave the message here to ensure I see it and answer in a timely fashion. Thanks!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

To do list

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

1. Fix Angelus ad virginem (short term) - W.I.P. User:RandomCanadian/sandbox#Angelus_ad_virginem RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Fix Church cantata (short-to-mid term)
3. Gustaf Düben & Düben collection
4. Abendmusik (DYK for one the two final Sundays before Advent, as the actual Abendmusiken were)
5. Draft:List of compositions based on the British national anthem (non-priority)
6. Whatever else is in my sandbox
   1. Category:Lists of political office-holders by age - finish clean-up

Gerda's October corner

October songs

Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded more images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand any Dutch. Good plans for Buxtehude! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should ask Drmies or Uncle G if they do (and if they have a passing interest for Baroque music: the Buxtehude in question is currently at Draft:Wo ist doch mein Freund geblieben?#Recordings)? I remember correctly from some silly conversation on the Doctor's talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Me? What? I listen to Radiohead. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Wat dacht je van deze: User:Drmies/Stavoren lighthouse? What I was vaguely referring to ("silly conversation on the Doctor's talk page") was apparently, this, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: - Do you have or think you can figure out access to this (Musik & Kirche)? PORTRÄT: Ein katholischer Schweizer an Bachs Platz. Andreas Reize – der neue Thomaskantor would seem (just from the title) like a great piece to add both to de:Andreas Reize and to an eventual article here. There's also the official news from Leipzig, which I link in the edit summary at Thomaskantor. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not that one. I found this NZZ, and yes, he should have an article. I'll do it if nobody beats me to it, but not on Sunday, - hymns and churches on Sunday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

He has an article, had to do it myself. I tried to ping you to User talk:John Cline, kindly look. 'tis the season. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the hymns. See my talk (to not repeat) for two so-called community bans from 13 Oct to 16 Oct, similar and different. Both had in common that I was away, so felt extra helpless. The first (2012) received at least a few hundred comments. I then debated with myself if I could remain in a community which did such a horrible thing, but decided (and I hope forever) that I'd better continued the work of the banned. "... suche Freud", start in church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your comments below. Sorry about your feeling powerless, but then again I think that while there's a fair few things we take too much time to act upon, or just do wrong, the community usually is quite good enough at recognising when someone has overstayed their welcome. I'll spare you thoughts on LA's comments and actions, my posts at AN are usually brief (voluntarily so: there's no need for unnecessary drama) and self-explanatory. As for something nicer, did you know... that I had the pleasant opportunity to play on this instrument (albeit briefly, after a concert by someone else) today! No recording, but I did take a fair picture of the thing. Laudate Dominum in choro et organo (inscription from the facade of the instrument): indeed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you found Freud playing that instrument. I miss Br'er Rabbit, daily, after 9 years. The design of the image frame (above), and of the precious award, is his. You may have noticed that I quote him, and a line from the ban thread, in my editnotce. I let him go, of course, - he wanted it so, provoking that ban and fixing it, which still makes me smile. - But: when I can't prevent loss of productivity and helpfulness, I feel helpless. Comments in the AN threads were horrible but imagine the whole thread had not happened, and the "perennial gang" could still produce articles such Karl-Heinz Petzinka. - As said on my talk: sometimes I read my editnotice loud to myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Learning English

Meinen Jesum laß ich nicht: To my understanding, lassen can be short for verlassen (leave) and loslassen (let go), and I'm not at all convinced that "verlassen" is "better" here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I always understood it as implying (beyond the mere literal meaning) something similar to the kind of idea expressed in Abide with me (or the closely related "Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent." ) - i.e., something deeper than merely "let go", which feels rather distant and impersonal (you let go of an employee, or of an old grudge : completely the wrong register to describe what the hymn's writer must have considered as something far closer). Hence "leave". FWIW, I'll note that other online translations are divided (Dellal has "let go"; but Ambrose has "leave", as does Browne). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What then is "loslassen" in English, the concept of not possessing another person, but let the other do what's best for the other, such as a child? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Same or different for "grudge": to let go of a grudge can be especially challenging. As said before, it took me years to let go of the grudge I felt towards people responsible for letting Br'er Rabbit go (although he wanted to go, almost forced teh community to ban him). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's where you see that translation is not an exact science. If I take the first meaning from Duden ("nicht mehr festhalten"), that would clearly be "let go". The description you give doesn't seem to have a single-word-equivalent, or at least none that pops to mind (maybe, in the meaning of allowing somebody to enjoy their own free will, "emancipate", although that word is usually employed in legal or otherwise more forceful contexts). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Instead of debating nuances of translation, though, it might be better just listening to some Bach? Like this little gem from the Thomaner. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the gem from start to finish. - I'm just trying to learn. I visited two graveyards past week, having to sing for a choir colleague (about my age) who had planned to sing last Sunday but died unexpectedly, and the grave of a close family member (don't want to out more ...) who died 10 years ago, and relation was frozen until yesterday when an old grudge was overcome a tiny bit. The thought of having to let go people is close, and I want to clarify if my description of it is wrong, or could be improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ps: ... thinking of Ich lasse dich nicht which doesn't say "I don't leave you", but "I shall not let you go unless ...". Farewell song for RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You are both right. You have highlighted the difference between translation and interpretation. It is more than bare words. A gesture or facial expression can create nuance or negate the literal meaning. In court, we use interpreters, not translaters. The meaning of words depends on context – not necessarily what a dictionary (even a cross language one) says. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Towne v Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 425 (1918), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/418/ quoted in Roberts, Harold S. (1986) Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.; Bureau of National Affairs), p. vii. ISBN 0-87179-488-8. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw your Buxtehude ping, but have no access to the book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: memories in friendship, - thank you for making the music section what it is, and organising the recordings! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

School of Thought

Good day! I saw that you removed the hat note from school of thought. Ded plans to release School of Thought in the next few days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: So you're telling me it's not even released? I don't think the hatnote is useful, not only because the redirect doesn't exist, but because someone looking for "school of thought" is extremely unlikely to actually be looking for an unreleased album by some random band from Arizona (if they are, they're A) more likely to just look for the band and B) probably on the wrong website). The hatnote therefore serves no useful purpose, AFAICS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There are quite a few references for this album. I do not think that it is harmful to have the hat note at School of thought. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Jax 0677 WP:WTAF. And also, please disclose if there's any undisclosed reasons why you started the related AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:WTAF says "Editors are encouraged to write the article on a given subject BEFORE adding a link to the article in list pages, disambiguation pages, See also sections, or templates". This means that Ded (band) (not necessarily School of Thought) should be written before the hatnote is made. The school of thought article had been unsourced for years. Why is it harmful to have such a hat note at School of Thought? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Jax 0677 "The article had been unsourced for years." - WP:BEFORE and WP:SURMOUNTABLE explicitly require that you make a reasonable attempt at looking for sources (and given this is such a well known concept, it really baffles me why this was even nominated). As to the question, because a hatnote for an unreleased album is borderline promotional; and there shouldn't be hatnotes when the relevant title doesn't exist. If there's enough significant independent reliable sources which cover the album (the cited source in the band's page does not appear significant (it's one album listed amongst many) nor independent (much of the information about the album is directly quoted from one of its members), then write the article first, as already said. (edit conflict) re. legalese interpretation of WTAF: a hatnote is a template; and additionally the purpose of hatnotes is when there are similarly titled pages which could reasonably have been what the reader was looking for (such as Regent Square (London) and Regent Square (Pittsburgh)). Given that School of Thought (album) does not exist as anything but a redirect (not an article), and is unlikely to warrant an article at this point, then I don't see any justification for the hatnote other than what appears like borderline promotion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

No undisclosed reasons. What are your "latest concerns about this"? I might post to WikiProject rock music if we can not resolve this here. The help desk was for clarification on next steps, not for forum shopping, and I did not get pinged during the help desk reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: See the post immediately before yours, above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

My prod was reverted, so I did AFD. If you have a specific question, please post an itemized list, and I will consider answering specific questions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you're making this harder than it should be:

1. Hatnotes should be used for when there is a reasonable case that readers looking for 'something' will end up at a very similarly titled page about 'something else' (the example I was giving with Regent Square (London) and Regent Square (Pittsburgh).
   1. Because the album hasn't been released yet, it is unlikely that many people will actually be looking for it
   2. Because the album doesn't have an article of its own, and is barely mentioned as an item in a list, the hatnote serves no useful purpose to our readers
2. Since the album hasn't been released yet, and since there does not appear to be sufficient sourcing at this time to warrant an article (see WP:GNG), then:
   1. Because "school of thought" is a very common concept (it is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), putting a link to an unreleased album by some average North American band seems like undue promotion (and also WP:BIAS, fwiw)
   2. You should wait until you can find enough satisfying sources to write the article first; and then maybe consider creating School of thought (disambiguation), which likely also has a few other valid entries (for example, Schools of economic thought), and would be a far more appropriate hatnote target.

If you can't reasonably address these arguments for why there shouldn't be a hatnote, then the outcome in light of the way things are usually done out here is rather clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

1. I think that readers might search for "School of Thought" when seeking the album, but if you disagree, that is OK.

1.1 I disagree, but OK.

1.2 I disagree, but OK.

2. I disagree, but OK.

2.1 I disagree, but OK.

2.2 I disagree, but OK. I might create School of thought (disambiguation). --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

So Jax 0677 is asking for a hatnote directing to an article that doesn't exist (and about an album that doesn't yet exist). I'm glad that's clear. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah.... this certainly seems like a cut and dry unnecessary hatnote. If anything, there should be a DAB page, and a hatnote to the DAB at the top of school of thought (which is clearly the WP:PTOPIC. Not a hatnote to the album, which is much too WP:PROMOTION-al — Shibbolethink 19:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I do not know how to fix the numbering, so I will allow you to please do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Funny close

Hi RandomCanadian, I love your "Winter in Canada usually lasts long enough without encouragement" close (diff). That was quite a humorous close and gave me a good chuckle. --TheSandDoctor 17:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks, I usually try to keep things more relaxed if it can be helped; and well, joking about beautiful Canadian winters is a classic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Very true. Thankfully, I am in an area where it doesn't get as bad as other parts. That said, we sometimes drive better in the snow and don't cause 30+ car pile ups . I'll probably end up moving somewhere with worse winters at some point in my life in my field, but I enjoy them being somewhat milder...I just really, really wish we had a touch more snow. --TheSandDoctor 18:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverts of IPv6

Hi, Randy. Re your reverts of 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:6839:E95D:3C92:F36C: thank you, and if you're interested in their other adventures, compare this page. Bishonen | tålk 17:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks (first time someone's called me Randy - they usually just stick with RC. fwiw, my name's Alex). I had noticed the talk page of the other IP by looking at the /64 range, but in practical terms (since I'd already reverted the offending edits; and since I'm not an admin so nothing else I could do), that was of rather limited interest (insofar that knowing the IP had been disruptive prior to the newest edits wasn't particularly surprising). You might also want to take the revdel out for these two revisions here, since they're obvious excessive quotations from their copyrighted sources. Thanks again, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Haha, hi Alex. Right, I've revdel'd the copyvios. Spontaneously, I'm glad to hear you're considering standing for adminship. But I myself was adminned in another geological era, and have never nominated anybody or generally involved myself much in that process since then, so I hesitate to advise anybody. I suggest you inquire of one of the frequent nominators. Or just wait a day or two, because now that the question is out there in public, helpful comments may well arrive from your talkpage stalkers. Bishonen | tålk 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC).

Socratic Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your eloquent arguments for the deletion of List of oldest living state leaders. Bravo! -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi RandomCanadian I am confused on what you consider as being incorrect information I added. The references are from the Sabians article. The book by Sinasi Gunduz names the Mandaeans as most likely to be the Sabians of the Quran which is the reference I added. The other reference was to show that Manichaeans were known as Zindiqs during the Abbasid era and not the Sabians. I don't understand why you reverted referenced material. Mcvti (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mctvi: Oh, so it was missing a few letters. You wrote "Mandaeans", which did not appear in Zaman's book (the Google preview includes pages 63 to 65)... Nor does the term "people of the book" appear, so it would appear like inappropriate WP:SYNTH to include it on that article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Still confused on what you are stating. The reference clearly states that the Mandaeans are most likely the Sabians i.e People of the Book in the Quran. By reference, I mean Sinasi Gunduz. I wiil edit again using only Gunduz as the reference, since Zaman is causing the problem. Hope that solves the problem. Mcvti (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

File:SillyWizard Wild.jpg

Thanks for your help. The reason why I wanted the image to be deleted is because I really screw up the license, not to mention that it's a CD cover (not a poster, as I initially indicated). How would a bot change that?--Filmomusico (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Firehose of propaganda

Your closure as 'speedy keep" of the deletion discussion of "Firehose of propaganda" does not meet the criteria set in Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep. For information, you closed it within 24 hours of its opening after five editors (including one who was a contributor) voted to keep. OTOH, two editors on the talk page had challenged the existence of the article.

Quite often in AfDs the first respondents are people who have contributed to or follow the article.

While the initial respondents may be representative of future ones, we can't tell unless other editors have an opportunity to reply.

I suggest therefore that you re-open the AfD.

TFD (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: WP:SNOW is a valid criterion, and CSK no. 3 is also valid criterion; and whether the editors who contributed to the AfD are contributors to the article (one would expect there to be some) is not a valid concern. I did not close it within 24 hours of its opening (the AfD was created at 21:12, 8 October; I closed it at 14:17, 11 October, which is nearly three full days). Looking at the article talk page is not the duty of someone closing an AfD, and complaints that some term is "propaganda" based on some political rhetoric involving American politicians and intelligence agencies don't seem valid either; and sources in the article and in the AfD clearly show that significant, central aspects of the nomination, such as "it has not been picked up in academic sources or reported in news articles and has not entered public discourse" (used to support the nominator's claimed lack of notability), are clearly erroneous (those sources were present in the article before it was nominated!!!). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you're objecting to me putting "speedy" in front of the keep, that doesn't seem like a reason to re-open the AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Citing scores

Hi RC. I noticed you tweaked a score I created because I hadn't cited the source. I have no problem with that, but should I have cited it? And if so, could you point to me to an example that includes this citation so I can see how it was done? (I swear I copied it note-for-note from an online source, but of course I can't find it today.)

P.S. I'd be interested in following/helping with a Hymnology task force, if you've given any more thought to that idea. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoof Hearted: For an ex. see the relevant section of Ye Choirs of New Jerusalem. Re. task force I don't have too much spare time on my hands at the moment, but feel free to use the ressources listed there: there's a lot of articles about hymns which are not very impressive... Re. the tweaking: I only altered a very few things which sounded odd to me (hymnal harmonisations don't often have quite the same elegant charm as Bach chorales, and in this case the few fixes where trivial). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoof Hearted: Another thing you can do, especially if you are decent enough with Lilypond, is head over to The English Hymnal (1906) on Wikisource, and transcribe the tunes (I have a few examples in my sandbox over there). They can then often be copied over here on the relevant articles, ex. this which I've managed to use not once but twice. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the suggestion! Down the rabbit hole I go! Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Düben collection

On 15 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Düben collection, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Düben collection contains the sole surviving copies of many works by Dieterich Buxtehude? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Düben collection. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Düben collection), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 6#Lauren King

If you close an RfD as retarget, you have to check for links that need to be fixed. I removed the link from the old target, but there are still five more. Thanks, -- Tavix 03:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tavix:  Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Tavix 04:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Pings

This won't work. If you muck up a ping you have to make a new post with a new signature. See Help:Notifications#Mentions. SpinningSpark 18:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks, I already know, just did it rapidly and forgot the essential part (I usually just link the user in the edit summary), ex. . Anyway, since they appear to have the page watchlisted (their initial comment was unprompted), doesn't look too important. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of In Freundschaft

Hello! Your submission of In Freundschaft at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CMD (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability discussion

Regarding this edit: perhaps you could consider a less confrontational alternative to "if you could count correctly"? I feel that a more moderate tone would assist in making others more receptive to your argument. Thanks. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Upside down fermata in O Come Emmanuel

Thanks for this. I got a similar result coding it another way, but couldn't get the upside down fermata to be full-sized. The \once \normalsize settings didn't seem to help (it appears that strictly effects note head size), so I thought a full-sized, upright fermata was the lesser of two evils. If it's alright with you the way it is, it's alright with me. Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States

Hello, you proposed the deletion of this page but I believe the page called List of minority attorneys general in the United States would face basically the same issues so I was wondering if you'll propose that one for deletion too so that a unified discussion can be held rather than two discussions on a pair of substantially similar articles. --Killuminator (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Killuminator: It's too late to do that (given the first nomination has been open for a while: it just shows how many of this kind of silly list there are); although there's nothing that prevents you opening a new discussion for the specific one you identify. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

DR Nobel university list

Please accept this as a good faith comment: while you may be passionate about this particular nomination and review, it's not necessary for you to respond to almost every single contribution, your views are quite clear. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: I'm not so passionate and more simply astonished by the lack of logic of some of the arguments (obvious red herrings are particularly ridiculous)... I've tried to keep my comments brief and to the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I find the entire delete argument utterly flummoxing as all I see is a content dispute. Asserting our *levels* of disagreement only pushes the noise-to-signal ratio in the wrong direction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have different instincts from Goldsztajn on these recent deletion discussions, but I agree with him that it would be better if you could reduce your level of participation: the nominations will not rise or fall on whether you personally rebut every single comment by Ber31 etc. --JBL (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sudrian Heraldry

The actual source was Awdry's own documentation, as maintained and displayed by the Narrow Gauge Railway Museum. I don't know how else to cite it. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Scientific Jargon and Review

In regards to your reverting of my edit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1051351599 Who ever officially says that it's not appropriate to say 96.1% (identical)? Is there a page you can direct me to, that shows that rule or just your opinion? To my understanding, it's not unheard of for real scientists in a well respected Nature Journal to go write that BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2. And people instinctively know what it means too. That SARS-CoV-2 and BANAL-52 is identical in 96.8% of their nucleotide sequence. Not similar (which is less accurate) but (completely identical) in 96.8 percent of their nucleotide identity. Nobody says it's 100 percent identical but only 96.8 percent of the sequence is identical.

Last year, researchers described another close relative of SARS-CoV-2, called RaTG13, which was found in bats in Yunnan5. It is 96.1% identical to SARS-CoV-2 overall and the two viruses probably shared a common ancestor 40–70 years ago6. BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2, says Eloit — and all three newly discovered viruses have individual sections that are more similar to sections of SARS-CoV-2 than seen in any other viruses. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2

Also RaTG13 is (96.1 percent), not 96 percent. Is there a source that asserts 96 instead of 96.1 because both my given sources asserts (96.1)? And I highly doubt those scientists can get the BANAL-52 figures wrong. It's not even a herculean effort to compute and calculate a similarity percentage in sequencing in this day and age. So it seems borderline arbitrary to wait for a review Why even allow the article to mention BANAL-52 if you think those scientists are shoddy because they lack a review? Nvtuil (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nvtuil: 96% is clearly the very basic concept of rounding being applied. As for waiting for a review, yes, WP:PREPRINTS is rather clear enough, and it has nothing to do with the scientists being shoddy or not. Serious scientific work is done by people with serious scientific formation and skills, and then reviewed by their peers, and we, anonymous Misplaced Pages editors, do not have any valid qualification to judge whether a random preprint is an acceptable source or not. There is WP:NORUSH, so we can let the scientific process take its time and the results be reviewed by qualified people. Misplaced Pages is not at the cutting edge of research, but an encyclopedia, and usually, following the science instead of being at the leading edge of it is where an encyclopedia should be. This applies to COVID as it applies to other areas of science. It's been barely more than a month since this was announced: even accounting for a possibly accelerated review given the impact of this discovery, that is still a short time, so there's not much we can do but wait. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ocer Campion Jesuit College (2nd nomination)

Hi, I disagree with your close here. Mainly because no consensus closes are usually determined by admin as they are not clear enough for a WP:NAC close. Also there were six keep votes as opposed to 5 delete or redirect, that doesn't mean it should be kept but that the close is not obvious enough for an NAC closure. Also your summary was expressing too much of your own view on the notability of the article and the discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: I don't see what is "no consensus" here, and whether closes are "obvious enough" is not something based on vote counts. Of the 6 keep "votes", 4 of them were basically "this school exists", which, as pointed out by those arguing against keeping the article in its previous form, is not a convincing argument (in line with broader community consensus, expressed at the 2017 RfC: an RfC which was closed by @Tazerdadog, Primefac, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221:) I disregarded those (as any reasonable closer would), since broader community consensus takes precedence over a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and since merely claiming the existence of something is otherwise a poor argument to make at AfD, double so when there's an RfC explicitly telling that in this context, it is not enough. Neither of these things is "my own view on the notability of the article": they're both well established and usually followed guidelines, and I saw no compelling reason to ignore them. That leaves two. Your comment essentially asserts that the school is notable "because of sources and of references regarding school results", but it doesn't provide any example of a source which meets GNG. The other, Pjposullivan's, argues, a bit more convincingly, that the sources are sufficient to show notability, but here their arguments are subsequently rebutted by others, and while there might be some place for reasonable disagreement over whether the sources were sufficient, the arguments that the sources were not sufficient were both more numerous and better argued in terms of policy, while those to the opposite were clearly in the minority, and thus there's IMHO a clear enough consensus that the article should not be kept, and because a reasonable alternative to deletion was proposed, that obviously was the preferred outcome. As for your argument that this was best left to an admin, I'll note that admins don't have superpowers in closing discussions; and, other than that, since the close was not particularly controversial (because the keep arguments were overall poor), and since I actually have experience doing this and since this does not require admin tools to implement, there's little reason to have left this to an admin when the outcome was obvious, and admins have better stuff to do anyways, like dealing with LTAs or vandals (caught both of those today: maybe I should consider...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes it was a redirect not a no consensus. That means it was a worse NAC closure because opinion was divided and in those circumstances an admin close is nearly always preferred. NACs should not need a long explanation as they should be very obvious, if I hadn't voted I would have left the close for an admin, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: One or two sentence is definitely not a "long explanation" (the fact I've entertained you with a long explanation here, to illustrate my thought process, which is much longer than merely the short fragment I wrote at the AfD, does not change the fact the close was obvious), and "opinion was divided" (in other terms: "this was controversial") is not, as I was saying, correct, because consensus is not determined through mechanical counting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I bdon't think i would have argued for keep unless the article were substantially expanded, this was not a place to do a NAC. You said the close was based on policy, but GNG is a guideline, and in such cases consensus at any article is sufficient without even invoking IAR. General practice about when to do a NAC is very conservative. -- DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)``

DGG Oh give me a break. I don't see any guidance that NACs anywhere need to be "very conservative"; and I don't what was not conservative about correctly ignoring arguments which are unfounded in policy. The consensus was clearly that this did not meet GNG. Just citing a guideline is not enough if you don't provide evidence, and since only one editor did (and this was challenged), they're clearly in the minority and I don't see what is possibly controversial about the close. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Tranniemal Trill Bundi

Hello, RandomCanadian,

Thanks for tagging this page for deletion but, please, any time you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. I see you use Twinkle, which is great, so please go into your Preferences and make sure "Notify page creator" is checked and that all types of CSD criteria are checked off as well. Then, Twinkle will post these messages for you which makes things easy. Thanks again. Liz 04:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I figured that A) this user is long inactive B) they probably have not adjusted their notification settings to not get an email (which is enabled AFAICS) when their talk page gets edited and C) those edits from 3 years ago suggest something along the line of NOTHERE (or at least, making a U5 user page does) . I figured this is one of those cases where notifying the person is not likely to improve the encyclopedia in any way, so I kindly abstained (it's also because I originally thought Special:Contributions/Jeanette_Jodeette might be an LTA , based on something on their user page, but I could only find this, and afterwards I reconsidered and figured they're likely just some dumb teenager). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for In Freundschaft

On 28 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article In Freundschaft, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that In Freundschaft was composed in friendship by Karlheinz Stockhausen as a clarinet solo for Suzanne Stephens (pictured), and later adapted to the instruments of other friends? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In Freundschaft. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, In Freundschaft), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobel prize tables

Hi. Did you intentionally restore Gah4's version of the new table at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (the same affiliations as before; multiple rows per laureate) instead of the TompaDompa version (one row per laureate; Nobel website as source of affiliations; mostly under construction)? I wasn't sure because it seemed to me that the talk page consensus (including your comments) favored the TompaDompa version, but maybe you thought the Gah4 version would be an easier place to start from in constructing it? Danstronger (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Danstronger: There were two duplicate tables in the article (which was at over 500 kb, which is way too much). I removed one, the one for which there is clearly consensus against (and, although I favour Tompa's version, Gah's table is still a step in the right direction: now one just needs to trim all the entries which do not match the nobelprize.org list). It might be more practical to have a /temp subpage (i.e. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/temp, or maybe better in the Talk: namespace) where an acceptable version can be constructed without getting objections that it's incomplete. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it, makes sense, thanks. Danstronger (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

speedy

I have contested the deletion of a page in user space, because It is specifically permitted to gather diffs for an arbitration action, The page should be removed after it has been used or become unnecessary. Of course, I like any other editor have the ability to remove the speedy,but altho doing so is not an admin action, I'm of course involved in this topic, and I tend to be overcautious. -- DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)``

Yeah I would have to disagree. They can't just keep that page in perpetuity, it becomes an attack page at that point. There's a reason most people do this off-wiki. Because, that way, it isn't a public "hate page" or "threat page." — Shibbolethink 04:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: They have shown no intention of doing anything with this beyond making threats that they will bring this to AE if I don't undo my revert of them, despite me explaining that per BRD, what they need to do is get consensus for their edits and not threaten me with dubious blackmail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Give_'em_enough_rope#Proposal:_Remove_text_that_refers_to_or_implies_death

This was a bad close. ––FormalDude talk 04:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I disagree, as someone who comes to read this discussion from a completely unaffiliated position. I respect both of you, FD and RC. I have argued on the same and opposite sides of both of you in past discussions, and I have found you both to be exceedingly reasonable editors who I can trust to examine the merits of an argument rather than its participants, so trust me when I say I am doing that now. I think your head is in the right place, FD, but I think you are unfortunately wrong about this one. Your intentions are good, it likely is not a hugely important essay to begin with, and we have others which say the same thing without the issues. But there just is not consensus/policy on your side, by any means. Quite the opposite. Editors by and large disagree and believe the essay should stay as it is. We must respect that consensus.To me, this is a clear case of a valid WP:SNOW for procedural and consensus reasons. — Shibbolethink 04:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My fault for not explaining it well enough from the start I guess. ––FormalDude talk 06:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Good & correct close. George Carlin was accurate about the evolution of soft language. GoodDay (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:STEAMROLL ––FormalDude talk 07:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I am sorry, but looks like this has been ongoing since at least March of this year. It is now November. I don't think there is much space for doubt about the horse being dead, and I think it would do everyone good to move on to something else. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this tenor of this close, even if it seems a bit hasty as such discussions go. The discussion itself had quickly devolved into a tit-for-tat between editors with strongly held opposing views, with no reasonable prospect for the evolution of a consensus to change the longstanding status quo. BD2412 T 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth

So I happened upon that AfD, which was closed as "no consensus"--fun fact, Green Hook 1224, Fabio 7654, the 2001 IP, and Poida, who of course all voted "keep", are all socks, from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Theotherscrubbythug. I think you might consider ... well I don't know, some review, or a renomination. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would bring this to the attention of Scottywong, who closed the discussion. It is reason enough for them to revert their close and reopen. BD2412 T 22:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Drmies and BD2412: You're all late to the party :) - you'll find the answer in the first section of Scottywong's talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Given the close, and Scottywong's response, I think opening a new AfD would be justified, then. BD2412 T 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yep. And again, that is one hell of a socker--blatantly obvious by now. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  In addition to the suggestions on my talk page, I'd also be fine with someone renominating the article at AfD, if you feel that's the best course of action. Considering the scale of disruption at the previous AfD, starting a fresh AfD is more than justified. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Archives

Hello, I'm not sure if you see the warning because I have some custom settings for verbose template errors. "You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter=7 as User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 6 is larger than the recommended 150Kb." this seems to be caused by manual archiving that exceeded the configured page size. The size could be changed or counter bumped and it should resolve it, I think. And thanks for being one of my talk page watchers, I didn't know until very recently. —PaleoNeonate – 06:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Yep, am aware of it. I'd usually fix it next time I got around to archiving, but since you ask so nicely... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

O wunderbare Speise

Sorry, I just looked for a fast way to avoid a red link, and as the author is no known individual, the song with not only the melody but even the exact harmonization we sang seemed a good candidate. Two recent deaths articles today, + a sonata on a birthday: no free time in sight to wright the stub. I changed the redirect to O Esca Viatorum of which it is a paraphrase, missing the music. We get deep into theology - so even less likely to be written soon (or ever) - considering that the text was "O heilge Seelenspeise", and the "small" change heavily citicised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding COA

Just to confirm, Misplaced Pages's policy is for COA to now be completely removed from military infoboxes? If so, although I disagree with this, there's a ton of articles I can edit them out of. Djks1 (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Djks1: The RfC I link in the edit summary (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_16#Close_the_coats-of-arms_loophole) has the details you need (as well as arguments why COAs shouldn't be used). But yes, you've got it right that COAs used as stand-ins for flags in military conflict infoboxes should probably be removed in nearly all cases. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Leakgate harassment campaign resistance award

Leakgate harassment campaign resistance award This is an acknowledgement of your resilience to bullshit and an encouragement to remain cool and insightful in adversity. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 05:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I don't remember getting involved with this Indian scandal. But sure, thanks! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A bit of satire in my custom award was also intentional, you may also remember where I got the expression from... For some reason this also reminds me of miraculous milk leak. —PaleoNeonate – 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed

that WP:V is a valid rationale for this. However, it is a bit weird with the three closely related AfD's (1 2 3) still going on. I suspect their actual topics are notable enough for a separate article (at least in theory), and I was hoping someone would come up with a few good sources to add them in, but such hope is probably vain. In any case, removing unsourced or poorly sourced information, whole articles if need be, should very much be the norm on Misplaced Pages. If only I could do this more often without contestation in some of subject areas I edit... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: That article already exists, as Horoscope (and maybe Western astrology). As far as I see, the good sources are few and far between. Much of the articles (especially the second one) also probably contain too much details about the intricate interpretations of astrology (instead of containing an encyclopedic summary thereof) and are also based excessively on primary sources (which is not a good thing, see WP:PRIMARY). One must remember that Misplaced Pages is written from a mainstream scientific perspective (which is not always the same as what is "popular") and that it should have a bias towards higher quality sources (i.e. the kind of sources which are most likely to provide a neutral and balanced account of the state of knowledge in their field). If that kind of source is not bothered with the pseudo-scientific details of astrology, then we don't really need to, either. In the same way that we don't usually bother with giving excessive uncritical accounts of other fictional inventions. The nearest example I can think of would be Acupuncture#Conceptual_basis, which as you can see spends a whole of 5 paragraphs in a much larger article... (and some of the sub-pages also have similar issues as the astrology ones...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, not everything that is notable necessarily needs a separate page, especially if it can be covered with sufficient context in an existing one. See WP:NOPAGE. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I would add that this is part of a larger problem on Misplaced Pages, where the fact that anyone can create an article has the unfortunate consequence that all kinds of superfluous sub-articles and sub-sub-articles are in fact being unduly created all the time. Combined with a structural bias against deletion, that creates ... a lot of cruft.

It's just that astrology (like my own field of specialization, which is the history of alchemy) is a huge topic from a historical perspective (history of astrology should really not be a separate article, since almost everything of encyclopedic interest about astrology is historical), and is being studied by an ever increasing number of historians of philosophy and science, as well as by the more recent but burgeoning field of Western esotericism studies. In that sense, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the sub-articles here would be recreated and brought to a GA by some specialist passing by in, say, 10 years. But for such a specialist to appear out of nowhere on an AfD, right now, well, that was just naive on my part. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it ...

... I just figured there wasn't a lot of point to responding. That guy positively, completely has an agenda, he has no problem with bending the facts or arguing against the point he made five minutes before to push it, and it's become a holy war with him. (Heck, I had the fleeting thought that I could -- falsely -- identify myself as a Croat in a userbox, and see if he'd really flip out on the "See! See! He has it out for Serbia!!!!" count. Not very productive, though.) The trouble is, I've been caustic enough in my responses to his idiocy that going to RfC or even ANI would likely boomerang. Ravenswing 22:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

COVID pandemic # Italy

If you do think that this edit made the section too long, why didn't you do some trimming, instead of reverting to a version that contained errors, had no chronological oder (mixing 2020 events with 2021 events), quoted opinions of irrilevant individuals citizens, and reported random episodical events? --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 10:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are obviously engaged in edit warring. Further such conduct places you at risk of being banned on Misplaced Pages.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ...............................................Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. WP:RS ...................... Reliable sources

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page