User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 11

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.

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie
  was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes Money emoji Athaenara • DeltaQuad Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes DeltaQuad Oversight changes DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a
  Twinkle preferences
  .

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

For unification, it would be better to remove the “to” prepositions in the Namespaces, To section, being already included in the heading. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Per the terms of

@

WP:RFPP. Jayron, did you intend this as an Arbitration Enforcement action? — Wug·a·po·des

​ 18:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The rationale you listed included "applied as an discretionary sanction under

WP:ARBIPA". I'm basing my request on that verbiage. Buffs (talk

) 19:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that clause qualifies the first part of the log message "Consensus required before moving page". This is further explained at the AE log entry that I added when placing the move protection: "Consensus is required before the page may be moved, and is enforced by full move protection (placed by Wugapodes, 2 March 2020)". That action did not modify the already existing ECP protection placed by Jayron on 26 February. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:RFPP. I was neither aware of, nor had any intention of, citing ARBIPA in my protection. --Jayron32

19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Also, you will note that Wugapodes DID log the action THEY took, and had already done so before you told them too. --Jayron32 19:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

1. Never "told" him to do anything. I asked. 2. I appreciate the clarification. Some of these ECPs are vague at best. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Sorry, I must have missed the question mark you never tried to type, nor any of the question words you never tried to you use when you "asked".--Jayron32 03:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"please" is a request, not a demand or order. Buffs (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You may both be interested in improving our articles on

illocutionary force which (ought to) cover the linguistic and pragmatic differences between requests and demands, as well as the difference between the intent of one's speech act (illocutionary force) and the reception and consequence of that act (perlocutionary force). Otherwise, please bicker elsewhere. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 16:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

We worked it out. We're good. Have a good day! Buffs (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have already noted the EC protection for the log on March 1. El_C 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You have edit-protected this page but it means no IP editor can now comment at

Can you please remove the protection or, in the alternate, note there that in my view that just naming the page

Hi anon, I've copied your comment into that section. I understand your frustration, and hopefully the page will not be protected for long. As you can tell from all the redacted entries in the page history, we're having some very serious issues on that talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can you consider moving the page to
  Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Requested_move_3_March_2020? Bringing it here since this section already exists and you had done a move protection. Azuredivay (talk
  ) 03:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Azuredivay: Move requests usually last for 7 days. Given the amount of disruption that has occured on that talk page, I would rather let it stay open the typical length of time so that outside editors can contribute to the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this, did you intend to apply ECP to the article as a DS measure? If so, I completely misunderstood. – bradv🍁 21:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: I did not. The brief discussion at User_talk:Wugapodes#Please_log_ECP_of_North_East_Delhi_riots explains most of it. Jayron32 original ECP protected not as a DS measure. It was logged regardless, and I thought it worth updating while I was there. Feel free to edit the log if need be, as an Arb and former clerk I would bet you know how that page works better than I do. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I understood the move protection to be a DS measure (although that could probably be lifted now), but not the edit protection. I have no problem with it being mentioned in the log, just as long as we're not at odds over it. Cheers. – bradv🍁 21:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A new RFC was filed almost immediately after your response, asking largely the same question. The OP also pinged back everyone who had supported version A in an obvious attempt to prop up his interpretation of your close that even though consensus was for version C, it was really for version A. What's worse, several editors have responded to his ping.

At least two of them have also repeated the bogus "original research" attack against me that was made multiple times before and during the previous RFC. (I interpreted your Participants were asked to use their

Beyond speedy-closing the RFC (a debateably INVOLVED action...) or issuing blocks/block-threats for repeated bad-faith accusations, I'm not sure exactly what you could do, but any advice on how to proceed from here would be most appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The question of whether the Yuriko Sato article from Version C should remain tagged was never addressed in the previous request for comment. The current request for comment only asks whether the tags should remain or be removed, so this is a new topic of discussion. Hijiri88 pinged every person from the previous RFC who had supported version C[11], but none who had supported version A. Therefore, I pinged the remainder who had supported version A.[12] This way, everyone who had previously expressed interest in the mottainai issue was asked to participate in the new RFC.Martinthewriter (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and I already explained how the two are not the same. Canvassing people who you know will agree to preposterous proposals like citing a source that clearly got the relevant information from Wikipedia just because of who is already involved in the discussion (or whatever other reason) is not the same as notifying the people whose already-stated opinions are being misrepesented.

Anyway, can I assume from the above that you have taken on board the multiple messages about not calling standard editorial discretion "original research" and will no longer do so? If so, this is a victory regardless of what else happens.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:DUE. I can promise you that there are many things academics publish which are absolute crap (I've put out my fair share of CV padding crap), and so just like any newspaper article, we need to consider who is publishing an article and why to evaluate reliability and due weight. Rather than focusing on each other, try focusing on what compromises achieve that goal. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, not everyone was pinged; Martinthewriter did not ping Levivich, but rather only pinged the editors who either (a) would probably support any proposal I oppose (I don't want to get into details in public -- for fear of reprisals, which have been threatened several times -- but all but one of the editors he pinged had a prior history with me and no prior history in the relevant article or topic area) or (b) would support including including "version A" content because that was what they had !voted for in the previous RFC. He also didn't ping other editors who had been involved prior to the original RFC but had not cast !votes therein, such as Imaginatorium and Phoenix7777, who all explicitly disapproved of the content in question. Given that the virtually everyone who has contributed to the article disagrees with him, the very act of opening an RFC (giving an excuse for

WP:HOUND

editors to rear their heads) could have been considered an act of canvassing.

And yeah, I don't doubt that scholars publish sub-standard material; I've been to conferences where the presenters where practically booed off the podium and went home in tears because those responding to their presentations didn't feel their research had been up to par. I've also seen evidence that professional scholars, when writing outside their field, freely take information from English Wikipedia.

And thank you for again clarifying the "not OR" part. I didn't personally need any clarification (it's actually enshrined in the lead of

WP:NOR

...), but having an uninvolved admin explicitly say as much is surprisingly reassuring.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get into details in public -- for fear of reprisals, which have been threatened several times @Hijiri88: This is concerning and you should email an administrator you trust or (a member of) the arbitration committee to discuss it. As for the other concern, I would still recommend getting in touch with WikiProjects. I think the increased attention from editors with expertise will help build consensus and defuse the conflict. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. (To be clear, I was talking about on-wiki reprisals. The last time someone threatened off-wiki reprisals was quite some time ago, and had nothing to do with the present dispute.) If you wouldn't mind, I could email you; most of the admins I have been in contact with by email in the past are either "friends" of mine (read: could be accused of being INVOLVED) or not active on the site anymore...

Anyway, it's just now come to my attention, but could you comment on the appropriateness of this RFC question relative to this article text?

I am not sure if Martinthewriter (talk · contribs) deliberately inserted a more "palatable" version of the proposed text (According to Yuriko Sato, mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan. The word later become connected to the Shinto concept that all objects have souls. -- emphasis added) into the RFC question, hoping that a majority !vote would support him, allowing the text he actually added to the article (and has yet to amend) to continue to read Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan. [...] The word later become connected to the Shinto concept that all objects have souls., but whether it was deliberately misleading or just an error on his part when editing the article, should the question be amended to match the article? I know we could just wait for the RFC to end and then edit the article accordingly, but I feel like asking uninvolved third parties what their opinion on a piece of text that wasn't actually under discussion would be (already has been) unhelpful.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You're free to email me if you'd like; I'm glad to know it's not concern for off-wiki reprisal, but fear is always a red flag as it prevents dispute resolution processes from working properly. As for your second request, it's been a hectic day for me in meatspace after having to salvage events the administration canceled due to coronavirus-related fears. I don't think I'll be able to give a coherent response until tomorrow, unfortunately. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't I know it! Here in Japan large-scale events that have a "mainstream" appeal (like the Kyoto and Tokyo marathons) are being put on regardless of the risk, and small-scale "obscure" affairs (like St. Patrick's Day parades in more rural areas and areas without a long-ish tradition of St. Patrick's Day parades, which essentially amount to 10-20 people marching up and down a pedestrian shopping arcade that would be just as busy without them) are being quietly permitted to move ahead, while the massive Tokyo St. Patrick's Day parade that I've travelled to Tokyo for every year since 2013 was suddenly cancelled, leaving my first week of March super-hectic with a combination of (a) events planned early so as not to clash with the larger events that now are no longer happening and (b) justifying said events not being cancelled to anyone who expresses concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

More canvassing, and bad-faith attempt to remove me from the article

Would you mind taking a look at this? I was half-tempted to respond by pinging all the editors who agreed with me and disagreed with Martin to see what they thought of his pinging everyone who disagreed with me (including one who hadn't edited the page in two months[13]) in an attempt to get me banned from the page, but given that I just wanted an admin to tell off one of the side-players (not Martin) for the repeated "original research" remark, doing so might cause the thread to run off the rails. But Martin has already pushed it off the rails with his long, completely bogus, comment -- is there really nothing that can be done about this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I don't have great answers, but would recommend taking a step back from the mottainai page. You should consider Martin's point about bludgeoning the discussion, and think about whether your current approach is resolving or escalating the dispute. I understand you're frustrated, but give the processes some time to work. The RfC seems to have improved with outside input, and the administrators who frequent ANI will examine the diffs provided; with any luck some may participate in the RfC. Hopefully this gets resolved, but I'm not comfortable taking unilateral action on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not talking about the mottainai page; I'm talking about the unambiguous misrepresentation of policy present in the diffs I presented, and Martin (who seems to only be interested in the mottainai page because I'm there -- I have seen no evidence that anyone could draw the conclusions he has based on an honest and good-faith reading of the sources) showed up and attempted to (succeeded in?) derailing it. He even repeated the accusation that I was engaging in "original research" by second-guessing dubious sources and/or sources that didn't support the content we attributed to them -- could you at least post in the ANI thread to the effect that you are the admin mentioned therein and you agree that what is being discussed is not OR?

On a loosely related note, nothing would have made me happier than to be allowed step away from the page back in November, or December, or January -- but the more I try to step away the more disruption takes place.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• This kind of thing is what I was talking about. An account with hardly any editing history, who has edited ANI no more than eight times in the past, suddenly shows up to target me specifically, as it had also done five years prior. The numbers behind the RFC !vote-count, whereby every single editor with more than 1,000 edits has taken my side, but somehow no less than eight new editors found their way to the discussion and block-!voted against me, is extremely unsettling.

(I still haven't found time to lay out the "private" stuff I'd rather send you by e-mail. To be clear, it has less to do with privacy and more to do with the fact that the editors in question are closely monitoring my activity and will immediately jump to retaliate if they see me explicitly mention them by name.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

21:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wugapodes. Would it be an idea to create an editnotice for GS/COVID-19 similar to {{

@MrClog: Hi MrClog, thanks for the note. The editnotice is a good idea, and I'll make that now unless you wanted to. I'm not sure the notification log is necessary. I expect most sanctions under this will be page protections, and I'm pretty sure that notifications are logged by an edit filter (@DannyS712: do you know about this?). — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead with the editnotice! I know that DS notices are automatically logged by an edit filter, but I'm not sure if the same is true for GS. If not, it would be handy to have a log because such notices can end up buried in archives/talk page histories. Best, MrClog (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I'm not familiar with discretionary sanctions / general sanctions, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

But, if you have some time can you hop on IRC? DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit filter 602 logs DS alerts based on the following condition: contains_any(lcase(added_lines), "-- derived from template:ds/alert --", "subst:") &. This does not include GS alerts. I couldn't find any edit filter that logs/tags GS notices--though one could be created I suppose. Best, MrClog (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:GS/COVID to be safe. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears {{gs/alert}} contains the text <!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> and therefore alerts are logged by edit filter 602. I'll place a message on the edit filter noticeboard to find out if this is on purpose. --MrClog (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: it is on purpose. No log on notifications is needed. --MrClog (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

00:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

17:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, WugBot hasn't done any DYK moves or deletions for over 30 hours, though it still took care of the GA Report page 15 hours ago. Can you please take a look and see whether you can get the DYK functionality running again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@

crontab so that a test runs at 00:00 UTC (~30 minutes) so hopefully that will give me more info. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 23:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to have a manual run done; there were a lot of moves and deletions backed up. Hope the midnight test run gave you useful info; it doesn't seem to have registered any edits from the main account. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it was because there were no updates to make; I ran it manually and there were no errors and no edits, so I think we may need to wait longer. I'll try to review one or two myself if I find some spare time. Sorry for taking longer than usual on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It ran at 3:00 UTC all by itself, so I guess it was the python version that was being used. Thanks for letting me know! — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad it's back up. Thanks for getting it back in service! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Just in case you hadn't seen it, I approved the WugBot 4 BRFA for a trial. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Thanks! I had seen, but I've run into like 20 different problems from Toolforge running a 2017 version of R that doesn't work with the libraries I use to the upstream data set changing their data format without warning. I'm working on getting it running as we speak but it's been a harrowing few hours. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a response concerning the RfC on Wednesday. Could you please have a look once you have time? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I'm not ignoring you, I'm just utterly swamped at the moment. I promise to respond tomorrow; sorry for the nearly week-long delay at this point. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. I am also more busy than usual (I am responsible for the exams of the whole faculty, which does not seem to be trivial business now, as students are not allowed on campus), so I can fully appreciate it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wugapodes! Good to see you patrolling the RfPP area. I noticed that you and another admin edit conflicted over the same request. I have a tip to pass along: whenever I decide to work on page protection, I check the page history before I start, to see if there is another admin currently working there. If there is, I go away and do something else. Because if there are two of us, we just can't help getting in each other's way.

That and other tips are at my essay User:MelanieN/Page protection. You might want to check it out. You won't learn much from it, because it is intended as an introduction for brand new administrators and you are way beyond that. But it might give you a hint or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie, I appreciate the link! It's a great essay, and it's a shame it only has 9 backlinks. I like the suggestion of checking the edit history first and will do that from now on; it was more awkward than the usual edit conflict and I'd be happy to not have it happen again. Also thanks for your reply on my AN post. My plan was to leave it open for a few more hours to see if anyone else wants to reply, otherwise take your advice and raise it to ECP. Knowing that ECP policy isn't as restrictive as I thought makes it a much easier decision. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

17:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		With appreciation, to Barkeep49, Wugapodes, and Ymblanter; thank you for your tireless (and underappreciated) work in seeing through the pharmaceutical drug pricing RFC. It was admirable of all of you to have taken on this necessary admin task when no one else would touch it. And sorting through my verbosity could not have made a difficult task easier! Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 and have a cupcake. -- Colin°^Talk 16:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia and Colin. I learned a lot reading through the discussion, and seeing how you all worked through the issues gave me even more confidence in our medical editors! It seems like the WikiProject still has a lot to figure out, but hopefully the same spirit of collegiality I saw in that discussion will continue. Also, those cupcakes look amazing and I wish I was as good a baker! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an
  ongoing
  request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the
  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft)
  and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Hey Wugapodes. Recently, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, an article I've written, was promoted to GA-status. I want to ultimately turn it into a FA. I was looking to change the refs into Bluebook-style references, but I have a question: can archived versions of references be added to the templates or is that not necessary? In addition, I've changed the ref style to using sfn, but was wondering whether all refs should be changed to that style or only journals? Thanks for your help, MrClog (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:CITEVAR for some pitfalls), but I wouldn't worry about the citations being a problem during an FA nomination. To your actual question: the answer is complicated because the Bluebook style is made for printed materials, not online works like Wikipedia. While the {{bluebook journal}} and similar try to adhere strictly to the style book, a few liberties are taken and you should feel free to do so as well. For example, rather than printing the full URL at the end of the citation (useful in print editions), we simply turn the title into a link (useful in online editions).

Citations in the Bluebook style, wherever possible, must be to printed materials "unless there is an authenticated, official, or exact digital copy of the printed sources" (see Rule 18.2). Where the resource is only available online, you cite it in the same style, but include a URL to the most stable location (Rule 18.2.2). If an archive link is more stable than the non-archive link and it satisfies the "exact copy" criterion, you should put the archive link in the URL field. Another option is to include a parallel citation to the archive link per Rule 18.2.3: {Regular citation here}, available at {URL here}. While the Bluebook mandates that the URL be written out in that parallel citation, feel free to take liberties. The first option is weirder but more true to the Bluebook style; the second is easier but involves straying further from the Bluebook style as written. If you still want to change the referencing style and you want to use the second styling option, let me know and I can tweak the templates.

Finally, your question about {{sfn}}. All references should use {{sfn}} or none should, otherwise the bibliography is less useful. Readers (including actual lawyers) will use your writing as a reference work, and sometimes that means they only want the bibliography. For example, a lot of linguists already know the stuff in Phonetics, but if they want to dig deeper, they can look at Phonetics#Works cited and browse for articles related to their research topic. If only some citations use {{sfn}} readers will have a hard time browsing the references because some will be in the works cited section, and others will be in the citations section, and they will need to keep scrolling back and forth. So the short answer is to use {{sfn}} for all citations or none. Hope that helps! — Wug·a·po·des

​ 21:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I will change all templates to sfn so that we can have a clear bibliography. I will also change them to Bluebook references, because those references admittely look much nicer. Again, thanks for the help. I will be adding a "Legal background" section where I also describe the 2003 & 2016 Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt SCOTUS cases and the general legal background of state sovereign immunity, as well as expanding the sections on the majority and dissenting opinion. Can I poke you once I'm all done for a peer review? --MrClog (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, can I use the ref anchor "harv" with the Bluebook journal template to be able to use {{sfn}}? --MrClog (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to review it! I don't think the bluebook templates support harvard referencing, because that's technically a different referencing style. If you want to use {{

WP:CS2 templates because they provide better bibliographic information than bluebook style. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 21:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be an idea to create templates for Bluebook short from references. MrClog (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, "ref name" serves the same purpose as Id., so we don't need templates. --MrClog (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you planning to +2 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/ChessBrowser/+/561389/ yourself, or wait for someone else to review it? Just wondering... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Gah, sorry, it's a busy time of the quarter and all the gerrit emails keep getting lost in the shuffle. I'll +2 it and work through the other comments too. Sorry! — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: no need to be sorry, I just wanted to do the cleanup separately, since I know you've done a lot of rounds already DannyS712 (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a look at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/ChessBrowser/+/574225/ ? DannyS712 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at cleaning up FenParser0x88 - can you take a look at the pending patches? I tried to make it easier by splitting the cleanup into individual patches that should be fairly simple to review on their own DannyS712 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I'll take a close look this evening; I've been skimming them as they come in, and they seem straightforward like you said. Not sure if you saw phab:T246856 and the related patch, but there's a weird bug I'm trying to track down in that file at the same time. Depending on how your changes interact with that investigation I may delay merging some patches, but I don't expect that to be a big problem. Thanks for your work on this, especially the clever refactoring of Board0x88Config and it's test cases! — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WFY some of the patches got +2 but are waiting because they were submitted in order and need to be merged in order DannyS712 (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw you just +2'ed one of them. Are you available on IRC to discuss a few things? DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Yep, I'm pretty new to IRC so bear with me! — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: You probably have a lot on your plate, but if you have time to look at the pending patches I'd be grateful. I'm trying to do as much cleanup and simplification before the security review, to make it easier to understand DannyS712 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Looking through them now. Standing offer of a beverage of your choice for your extraordinary work on this project. (I'm on IRC if need be as well) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes and DannyS712: Just letting you guys know that you have blocked Zuul tests and gate-and-submit for ~2 hours. 😂 --qedk (t 心 c) 22:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...not my best moment. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Definitely deserve a trout or ten for that - the disadvantages of being whitelisted :) DannyS712 (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems normalcy has returned (except for postmerge queued at 8 hours now, idk why?) Would not have realized but my gate-and-submit was stuck for a while and went to check Zuul if WMCS had something going on (something at Toolforge was down I believe, got a lot of failed emails from my cron daemon). --qedk (t 心 c) 06:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I gave a +2 to https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/585364/ myself, since it should be pretty uncontroversial, but there are a number of other pending patches DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

19:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:IPA-euler-manners-features.svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the successful nomination, Wugapodes. I certainly didn't expect such a unanimous (among the participants, at least) support. I think it's your pitch that sold it, not just my work. Nardog (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)