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.

Archive 175

←

Archive 178

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

→

Archive 185

November 2021

I was recently restudying the recent R&I activism, RFCs etc. I just wanted to note again that your guidance was very clueful on this topic, and appreciated. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it!  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 21:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

TikTok follow-up

Hi! Any chance your computer has been cooperating enough to allow you to turn your attention back to my TikTok proposal? Much appreciated, Bkenny44 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Paid work and another project have taken up my time; I've barely been on WP at all. I have not lost track of this entirely, but hopefully someone else will work on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:For glossary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 03:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 04:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PEOPLANG

How did this happen when the linked discussion explicitly says that consistency for either lowercase or uppercase was found by the original proposal? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Drmies being weird, I guess. I've reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 15:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

 Done

 – but it was not really an RfC, just a mis-tagged complaint about a CoI tag being put on the article.

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 10:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

November thanks

November songs

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

now "juxtaposition of the sublime and the trivial" + Advent music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering why we don't just include quote marks directly in the titles of Wikipedia articles about "

". I thought I would ask you about it before opening a broader discussion, so you can nip this silly idea in the bud – and surely I'm not the first to think of this possibility. It would entirely avoid the need to disambiguate songs from albums of the same name (since the song's article title would have quote marks in it and the album's wouldn't) and it would ease correct Wikilinking – e.g., no one would forget to include the quote marks when referring to a song if the only way they could link to it would be to include the quote marks in the link. Moreover, it would avoid needing a lot of tortured hidden markup involving the use of pipes to disguise what is happening.

For example, at Play with Fire we currently have this:
* [[Play with Fire (Hilary Duff song)|"Play with Fire" (Hilary Duff song)]], 2006
* [[Play with Fire (Rolling Stones song)|"Play with Fire" (Rolling Stones song)]], 1965

That could be simplified to:
* [["Play with Fire" (Hilary Duff song)]], 2006
* [["Play with Fire" (Rolling Stones song)]], 1965

This way, the title you are shown would be the actual title of the article instead of something else (and the WP:PIPETRICK would work properly for these songs, whereas it currently does not).

The current scheme makes everything even more strange when there are quote marks within a title of a minor work, for example, when discussing a particular episode of The Simpsons, we currently need to say [[The Old Man and the "C" Student|"The Old Man and the 'C' Student"]] or perhaps "[[The Old Man and the "C" Student|The Old Man and the 'C' Student]]". Instead, the title of the article could just be "The Old Man and the 'C' Student" and the pipe and differing quote mark selections could be avoided.

On top of all that, we currently have a mismatch between the title displayed in big font at the top of an article – e.g., currently Beat It, and the opening sentence and infobox, which say "Beat It" (with quote marks) instead.

I'm guessing you're going to say something about mixing our orthography into our semantic meaning or somesuch. But I think this approach would be easier (after a somewhat painful transition).

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: ping for attention of another user who cares about such matters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the history of considerations of quotation marks in titles, but for now I'd say one could achieve a lot of the suggested link simplification by making redirects that include the quote marks. I doubt that would get much pushback, unless people really don't want redirects in disambig pages. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. I think the marks are not included in the title directly because they are not literally part of the title but markup placed around the title. E.g., if you look at the cover of a CD single, the title is not in quotation marks. It's in quotation marks when a third party writes about the song.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy belated Thanksgiving!

	Happy belated Thanksgiving!
	Better late than never... Happy holidays to you! Huggums537 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Category scope has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Disregard

 – Too confusing an "RfC" to even respond to.

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 22:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)