This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

March 2018

It's been about two months since we did an overhaul of the production section of the film manual of style, and while it's helpful to the point that I have not into any disagreements about changing production sections to fit it, there's also an overwhelming amount of articles to be fixed. I've tried three times over at Talk:Wikproject film to ask for help brainstorming a way to lessen the load and get more people involved but to no success. I'm kinda lost on what to do. There really isn't a way to announce this as a task for cleanup as it is so extensive. When I talked to @NinjaRobotPirat: he suggested creating a cleanup template and then all the pages would be neatly sorted into categories but I just don't want to go around tagging articles for an inordinate amount of time. Again. I'm kinda lost. Any advice? --Deathawk (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:AWB; you can use it to burn through entire category trees quickly. I'm swearing off most editing of pop-culture-related articles, myself, because too many editors spend too much time on them, and WP is dominated by them. PS: It's been my experience that major MoS changes are something that a) take a long time to propagate, organically, and b) are sped along by someone saying "F it, I'll put in the work" and hitting it for a good long time with fairly singleminded purpose. Film doesn't overwhelm me with interest to the extent I'd do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  15:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

... and in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

... and in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

... and in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

... and in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

... and in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

... and in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

... and in September! Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Userpage Barnstar
		I decided you deserved this for your very interesting and informative User Page (perhaps all the more so because I only came here because we had been on opposite sides in your ENGVAR Templates RFC). Then I discovered that you already have one of these, so I decided to give you the alternative format. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus: Thanks. :-) I consider it kind of a mess; some other editors have done a lot of fancy CSS work to make theirs better, but I don't like to spend a lot of time on userpage stuff unless it's directly geared at productivity. So, it's kind of a feature dump of tools I use, and to-dos, and proposals and their results, plus a bunch of infoboxes that I hope help explain my proclivities, skill sets, interests, and hot buttons to other editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it really is a mess, then it would seem to be a very useful and informative mess Tlhslobus (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad it's been helpful. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done

Hi SMcCandlish, you may be interested in an evolved suggestion regarding

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done

 – Responded at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, to the extent a response was even needed.

Hi SMcCandlish, in the open Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank for redaction of this article (I am an author of piłkarzyki na sprężynkach from PL wiki). I also have found interesing article in PTwiki: pt:Futebol_de_pino. BTW what do you think about new article ca:Billiard hockey (Mybe strect is similar game to cymbergaj and gombfoci), pl:Cymbergaj and hu:Gombfoci (popular in Hungary and Brazil) artile gombfoci exist in ENwiki as Button football Dawid2009 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:CONCISE, in letting the reader know they're about multiple games.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  13:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Structure of

Table hockey games. ca:Billiard hockey is czech game which reeally is comercial version of pl:Cymbergaj#Cymbergaj szóstkowy (but cymbergaj not imit hockey, it imit rather football, but it is generally not important for rules of game, similarly paper soccer = paper hockey). Genesis of Biliard Hockey is from czech game Strect (most propably similar game to Hungarian gombfoci and Polish cymbergaj), it would be as reaible source and example in Tabletop football#history

(actually there isn't sources about: Inspired by home-made games involving children flicking marbles)

The term used there, cymbergaj, seems to also be used for

Air Hockey

. Indentification is modernly and wrong.

We should probably do something about the inconsistent naming of

Table hockey games and Tabletop football - English language isn't my native so I can talk nothing but it seems to value for disscussion. BTW, it seems to value for disscussion Paper football and Paper soccer? Dawid2009 (talk

) 16:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

According to this disscussion (machine translation show me) that asztali labdarúgás is formal sport (like to for example Biliard Hockey or ITHF table hockey) while gombfoci is just a game (like to for example strect or carrom), views in google can confirm it. Accorting to google translate also asztali labdarúgás = Table football (litearlly not as Foosball) and gombfoci = Button football (litearlly).

Pin football (the subject of the Portugese article) actually is popular outside Brazil and has different variants (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV9yCvbxsGo&index=275&t=0s&list=FLhuK0r1J-7ItoE33-yZBZwQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVdRRpKm9Q8 - video from yesterday). In Tabletop football#types also there is described most propably de: Tipp-Kick. There are also other similar games to Tabletop football and Tabletop hokey with usage of magnesium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqjiWkwIIGM , WeyKick ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAem6Zozb0Y&list=FLhuK0r1J-7ItoE33-yZBZwQ&t=0s&index=348 ), de:Klask . Dawid2009 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: The main issues from my perspective are these:

1. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because one of the non-English wikis has an article on something doesn't mean en.Wikipedia should; we have a stricter WP:Notability
   standard than many. To the extent we cover any of these things, they should be merged into the existing articles here, which are broad enough to cover all these variants.
2. We shouldn't include any for which there are no
   independent source
   .

Personally, I have little incentive toward adding this material myself; my goal was just cleaning up the existing material. I'm happy to edit added material, for English grammar, etc. But beware of the problems of using machine translation to try to figure out what the rules of these games are. It may be better to provide only very basic information about these variants to start with; people competent in both English and whatever other language (Hungarian, Polish, Galician, etc.) can expand the information later.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

#

reliable sources (Inspired by home-made games involving children flicking marbles - althought it is also in Button football). In Tabletop football#history also is next wrong information: The earliest was Newfooty in 1929 (according to de:Tipp-Kick#Geschichte tabletop there were before, in 1921). Due to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I suggest to write it carefully and generally: 20's and with omnission of name of first authors/companies.

Just because one of the non-English wikis has an article on something doesn't mean en.Wikipedia should; we have a stricter WP:Notability standard than many. - Pin soccer (from Portugese article) should be included in Tabletop football#types. I just have explained and showed you that this game has variants and it is also popular outside Brazil. It game is more common than tabletop football with springs, due to fact tabletop football with springs in google has only two reaible sources/encyclopaedic premises: lego soccer and inspiration of Magnetic Soccer (video game), it has no sources in BoardGameGeek.

To the extent we cover any of these things, they should be merged into the existing articles here, which are broad enough to cover all these variants. - asztali labdarúgás would be as one information in

Original table hockey - who sets some standards? It is not compatibile with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and some variants aren't very other than ITHF table hockey

A propos cymbergaj (game's name from yiddish, game is

coin football and button football) interesing also is edition of Izrael IP (I just have corrected this mistake

)

Personally, I have little incentive toward adding this material myself; my goal was just cleaning up the existing material. I'm happy to edit added material, for English grammar, etc. - What do you think about disscussion about Paper soccer and Paper football? Paper soccer is in google popular as paper soccer but it is most propably just due to de fact article in English Wikipedia has been created in 2004 in US English and the name Paper soccer has been popularised in Internet. Are these de facto original research? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me. On the final point: I don't know. It would be original research to decide that "paper soccer" is more popular in Google than "paper football" because of original research. >;-) I would keep it at Paper soccer because Paper football is a completely different article, and Paper soccer is sufficient disambiguation and precision and recognizability in English. It's a total myth that association football is only called "soccer" by Americans; the short name actually originated in England. It's just not used in any "official" capacity by association football governing bodies and such.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done

 You are invited to join the discussion at

19:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

 Done

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there, since I was the nominator of the previous RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done

I would appreciate if you could comment about which of these two articles has the correct title formatting:

I'll comment there, to centralize discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done

The

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor working on the article

@

cn}}-tag the material. If it is controversial, it should just be removed until properly sourced. Hopefully this is already old news and it's resolved. I was on wikibreak for a while and am just now catching up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  03:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! Thinker78 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
3. Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
4. The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
5. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
6. For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, the actual claim the Globe and Mail made is overstated by one or more editors who read far more into an "investigation" and a second editorial piece clearly labeled "opinion" than is warranted for the use of Wikipedia to make a claim beyond what the newspaper actually makes as a claim. I would ask you to note the carefully parsed language used by the newspaper, as opposed to the claim being sought in the BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: That seems like a reasonable concern. I may have overstated something, but I also went on a fairly long wikibreak and the issue seems stale now. Feel free to ping me again is there's more discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an awful lot more tangled than all that. The G&M article itself became widely-reported news (and continues to be four years later) that has deeply affected peoples' perceptions of Ford, so it almost undoubtedly should be reported in the WP article (despite BLP concerns). A sticky problem is that many of the supporters want it not only included, but presented in the article so that it has the impression of being a fact (by placing it the "Early life" section, or in a section of its own). The most prominent POV-pusher has since been indeffed as an unrepententant sockmaster, but there are others still pushing it (including an admin), and inevitably will be more as we near the election in June. The RfC wasn't designed to deal with these issues, so a lot has been left up to ... creative interpretation of the "consensus". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like it's worth a second RfC. We SHOULD be covering it as a "live" controversy, but not choosing a side in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Moot

 – Got there too late, and it closed as "no consensus", but I would have supported the merge.

Hi! The {{