User talk:Neelix/Archive 22

3076:. Thank you for your work as a TFA coordinator! I do tend to read most of the TFA blurbs, although often only the day of. The three things I tend to watch for are missing images, missing links, and poor punctuation/grammar. I check to ensure that all blurbs that can have images do have images, and I try to do so well in advance of the date in question. I normally only pick up on the missing links and punctuation/grammar errors once the blurb has gone live. If I could make one suggestion with respect to TFA, it would be that TFA blurbs be restricted to information contained in the lead section of the article; I have sometimes seen cherry-picked statements make their way into the blurbs from somewhere in the body of the article when that information clearly wasn't central enough to the subject to be included in the lead of the article. Overall, I'm quite pleased with how TFA operates. 1464:, that reader would have to 1) assume that simply typing "Lohengrin" into the search bar and pressing enter will not bring them to the article they are looking for, 2) know how parenthetical disambiguators work on Knowledge (XXG), 3) choose to invent their own disambiguator for the article rather than select one from the drop-down menu, and 4) make a specific incorrect guess as to the actual disambiguator used in the relevant article. As far as I can tell, we are talking about a very rare occurrence. 2510: 31: 3703: 362: 546: 578: 2126: 1142:"Violating" the guideline doesn't constitute common sense, Neelix. Knowing when applying the guideline would lead to an inappropriate and misleading result and making an exception to avoid that constitutes common sense. The primary meaning of "Lohengrin (opera)" is Wagner's opera. That fact is indisputable. But you seem determined to plow ahead anyway and completely ignore the caveat at the very top of 2817: 2215: 3041:

such disambiguation should be undertaken and whether or not it is helpful to the reader. I believe that the guidelines are on my side, but I see no reason to argue about it. A simpler solution would be to create one of the many potential articles you mention, thereby demonstrating that the disambiguation is necessary. We would then be in full agreement on the issue of the disambiguation.

2426: 3919: 2098: 655: 2053: 4175: 3877: 3836: 3640: 3593: 3546: 3499: 3452: 3405: 3358: 3311: 3264: 3217: 3170: 2959: 2676: 2635: 2260: 316: 275: 234: 193: 152: 111: 3714: 373: 1526:(1) and (2) are learned quickly by readers who often use Knowledge (XXG). And "opera" would seem like a rather likely "guess" or "invention" from a reader who knows there are other Lohengrins out there (such as the title character itself) but is unaware that there is another opera by that title (which is again very likely). 1825:; these articles are the responsibility of the community as a whole, not an individual WikiProject. I don't think this is an issue of not listening to each other. As far as I can tell, we have all been listening to each other, but we have continued to disagree. I had thought that you had communicated 1760:

I just found this thread and have read of the stubbornness of all parties involved, who keep repeating the same thing. Rest assured, all parties involved have a good and valid point. May I suggest this discussion is taken to a more visible place, where others can get involved and a true consensus can

1459:

Readers who become familiar with the process quickly learn not to outrun the drop-down menu and invent their own parenthetical disambiguator (and so to often guess wrong), but rather to select one of the ones that appear. In the hypothetical situation that a reader would independently type "Lohengrin

1922:

and that my status as an administrator should not give my arguments more credence in this matter; adminship has not been relevant to this discussion. I believe that both Gerda and I are making valid points, but the fact that we continue to disagree necessitates the pursuit of broader consensus. This

1695:

I tried the search function for "Lohengrin opera", assuming that's what a reader who vaguely remembers there's an opera may type. Result: the dab page, then Sciarrone, then the discography, only number four Wagner's work. I don't need studies to see that it is a disservice to the majority of readers

1009:

Common sense has been mentioned. Whatever a guideline says, people will code (used to it, as I am by years of training, or because they know) "Lohengrin (opera)" and mean Wagner's. They will be told by the bracket bot that they are wrong. They go and repair. - What a waste of time, for what? For the

1867:

I have written the proposal and just need a place to post it. I'd like to quickly remind all parties that Neelix is an administrator, and should therefore have a broad understanding of Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines (although even he would admit he has not worn that hat lately). As well, I'd

1052:

People are unlikely to make this mistake more than once, and the inconvenience is trivially small. I don't see how violating this guideline constitutes common sense. Generally, the common sense exception applies when there is no disagreement on the subject, but there is clearly disagreement between

477:

You have no idea how happy I was to see your recent edits to these pages. Like I said elsewhere, I am really not very experienced on the TV episode articles, which is the primary reason I didn't make any changes based on the sources I found, but if there is ever a chance I can help out in some way,

1592:

It would appear that you and I disagree substantially on how likely this occurrence would be. Our philosophizing on the issue has failed to bring us to the same conclusion, and we would have to perform a study to determine which of us is correct. I don't think either of us wants to go that far for

3040:

I greatly respect your work on Knowledge (XXG), especially with respect to paintings. Past encounters between us have demonstrated that we disagree on the particular issue of disambiguating article names that could not be confused with other existing Knowledge (XXG) articles, about whether or not

2477:

and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the

2372:

That's the same defense I once gave in the same situation and I was just as wrong as you currently are (I once requested a technical move and was crucified for it, so I changed it to a controversial move and was soundly defeated. I know I won't be misidentifying a controversial move ever again).

794:

Hi Neelix. Yes, like Gerda, I would mind very much, and I think most editors working on opera-related article would agree with us. It is a disservice to editors and especially readers to be sent to a disambiguation page when 99.999% of the time their target is the opera by Wagner. The only other

3109:

is not included in the article's lead, and for good reason; it is a comment from an anonymized critic about a poem that is not the main subject of the article. There was other lead content that could have been included instead, and I would think that there should always be, considering that the

1791:

Some things are not changed by changing "consensus" but are facts, for example that people who think of Lohengrin and opera think of Wagner. (Call me stubborn.) I think project opera would be a better place than disambiguation, and I just found out that while Voceditenore and I are members, and

1194:

Common sense does not require unanimity. 99% of the readers who type "Lohengrin (opera)" will be looking for and expecting Wagner's opera. Why should they be directed anywhere else? Most cases of incomplete disambiguation will not have such an overwhelming disparity of notability. Hence the

869:

are clear that incompletely disambiguated titles should not be redirected to articles but to disambiguation pages. I do not see how the relative prominence of these operas is relevant; it is not a factor that is (or should be) included in the relevant guideline. Normally, archive links are not

2335:

controversy, I hope you will accept some friendly advice: You obviously erred when you boldly moved "Lohengrin (opera)" to "Lohengrin (Wagner)" and then tried to take that even further. You should have instead realized that this was a controversial move and should have gone through the proper

4077:

See the article talk, the warnings against moving from something general to the specific instrument of the modern symphony orchestra, + to a name that is rarely used (as the lead says), even that is called "horn". All Baroque music should be taken out. - Easier solution: move it back ;)

744:

states that "When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page (or a section of it)." Would either of you mind if I retargeted the link back to the disambiguation page?

3090:

Great, I had a sense that you were checking a lot of things. Cherry-picked: can you give an example? Some TFAs don't come close to the ideal length of 1200 characters (I'm generally keeping them between 1250 and 1050), and there are occasionally problems with leads. - Dank

1345:

used by editors. Even if a reader sees "Lohengrin (opera)" in the drop-down menu, "Lohengrin (Wagner)" will appear first in the list, and this is what will be chosen if that is what the reader is looking for. The popularity difference is thereby taken care of naturally.

767:

Yes, we would mind, because - as said on project opera - 100% of past links to it will mean Wagner, and 90+% of future links will mean Wagner, - actually I guess 99% will not even dream that there could be another operatic piece, and the few meaning Sciarrone will know.

644:

Hi again Neelix, I hope you can re-locate those page numbers you need for the cites for the JC's Girls article; good luck with it. Just stopping by to drop a hint that if you want to review one of my GANs in return that would certainly be okay with me. If so, I suggest

1095:

I suffered some other moves by the power of the holy guidelines which were worse than this. If you want to waste your time, I will not stop you. (But promised: I will make the "opera" mistake several times to come, it's almost automatic and hard to re-learn.)

3024:

I suppose it is a complete waste of time to ask you to stop doing these de-disambiguations of painting titles with hundreds of works, only one of which happens to have a Knowledge (XXG) article? They are unhelpful to the reader. Have I mentioned this before?

2152:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

2748:. I am surprised by your interpretation of WP:EPONYMOUS. According to that guideline, "Eponymous categories typically take on a selection of the categories which are present in their corresponding articles." Why have you removed them all? 1730:

Changed? No, I think I said clearly enough that I think Wagner's Lohengrin should be the primary target for Lohengrin (opera). I now see evidence that the other is not working well, evidence that I didn't see before. May I mention that?

1400:

Readers would type parenthetical disambiguators once they become familiar with the process. I certainly used to before I started editing. And when they do they should get the page they are almost certainly looking for, not a dab page.

2608:

had already undertaken the source review. My apologies, John; I had misunderstood your statement "but mostly not" as meaning that you would like someone else to do further source review. I really appreciate all your help!

1923:

issue does not seem to me to be opera-specific, but can rather be generalized to disambiguation issues across subject areas. While WikiProject Disambiguation seems like the most relevant WikiProject, I would recommend

1871:

Neelix, is the place I suggested above the correct venue for seeking this consensus? We need a neutral place that will be widely seen. (Note to Gerda: You can certainly post a neutral canvas message at project opera).

1711:

I think we've established that we aren't going to agree on this point. You said that you would be willing to leave the redirect alone if the archive links were altered, which has been done. Have you changed your mind?

2930:. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the 450: 2482:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request 2156:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

2458:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 1053:

us on this subject. I have offered the compromise of me taking the time to go through all of the archives and fixing the links before retargeting the redirect. Would you be willing to accept this compromise?

3805: 870:

considered important to keep active, but I would be glad to go through the archives and switch the links if that your primary concern. As for future links, very few if any will articles will link to

724:! I'm surprised to hear that I left broken links; I am normally exhaustive in my correction of these links after moving an article. I am glad that all of the links have been fixed now. I notice that 2149: 2722: 3939: 2578:

Hi David, I'm sorry to intrude—I thought I already did a source review for this? Unless what I did was insufficient, in which case I apologise. I hope you are having a pleasant Easter weekend. —

2082: 687:. That is correct because there is another (not well-known) operatic piece. But you left no redirect, hundreds of links are broken. The easiest solution seems to reinstate the redirect. -- 925:

In this case, common sense drives the exception. But if you're determined to follow the letter of the guideline instead of common sense, then yes, I would greatly appreciate you fixing

3935: 3655: 3608: 3561: 3514: 3467: 3420: 3373: 3326: 3279: 3232: 3185: 2974: 2275: 1931:, so the outcome of this discussion would ideally either clarify or amend this section so other similar disagreements will be better-informed by established consensus in the future. 2691: 2650: 331: 290: 249: 208: 167: 126: 2556:

Hi Neelix - thanks for the appreciation but I have to decline the source review. I don't have the time really to focus on this - it would be completely new for me. All the best--

4190: 3892: 3851: 3679: 3106: 2527: 2138: 969:

Well, if you fix all the incoming links first, I'm not going to make a big fuss about you re-redirecting. But for the record, I don't really agree with it.

2880: 2415: 2222:

for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can

2355: 874:

because, even if someone tries to add such a link to an article, they will receive an immediate notification informing them of their error. Having

920:

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions

2354:

I think that the controversial nature of the move is only obvious in retrospect. As soon as opposition arose, I pursued discussion. That is the

4168: 3870: 3829: 3633: 3586: 3539: 3492: 3445: 3398: 3351: 3304: 3257: 3210: 3163: 2952: 2669: 2628: 2253: 2209: 309: 268: 227: 186: 145: 104: 3818: 2941: 1593:

the sake of a single redirect, but perhaps such a study could be undertaken for the sake of making the relevant guideline better informed.

463: 804: 2474: 2451: 2419: 1868:

like to remind all parties that Gerda is a well-respected editor across a vast number of disciplines (although she clearly favors opera).

3743: 1792:

Rlendog is listed as a former member, Neelix is not. Neelix, how about listening to those responsible for the articles in question? --

402: 2884: 1822: 3690: 2999: 3702: 807:. Note that standard practice with opera articles has been to use the "(opera)" disambiguator for the most well-known version e.g. 361: 2307:

nomination. You may need to double check your two statements to ensure that readers will understand your ultimate stance. Cheers!

3785: 2056:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

1974: 1924: 1762: 3814: 3061:

Thanks for your edits on TFA text. Do you look at most of them? Any suggestions, or anything you'd like to do more of? - Dank (

2937: 459: 2435: 1663:

Even if this occurrence would be infrequent, why create the confusion and extra step when it does? 13:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

3925: 2872: 2828: 2573: 2463: 1755: 4036:, the meaning unfortunately narrowed, - a major rewrite should have been done but wasn't. Until it happens, better link to 497:! That you did research for that article at all was very kind. I appreciate you welcoming me back so soon after my return. 2876: 2479: 3771: 3757: 2995: 430: 416: 2337: 2142: 2836:

There is no significant coverage of the church itself. Media only mentions church building as a venue for some events.

94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2442: 1928: 1919: 1143: 955:

provided that I first fix the archive links, I would be glad to take the time to do so. Have we reached a consensus?

866: 741: 3142:, I think images are important ... and not just for voice actors. Adding a programmer pic was a nice touch. - Dank ( 2859: 3009: 2223: 733: 592: 38: 2194: 2028: 3900: 3859: 2998:

adding in a recent merger. I submitted a few additions and citations I was hoping you could review due to a COI.

2927: 2133: 2117: 4132: 3971:

to FA but I just came across a new reference you haven't used and thought you might want to know about it. The

3947: 2824: 1195:

general guideline, which applies when the subjects' noteriety is more balanced is inappropriate in this case.

2183: 800: 2932: 4083: 4045: 3737: 2605: 2585: 1797: 1736: 1701: 1296: 1248: 1151: 1101: 1019: 974: 938: 840: 773: 707: 692: 522: 396: 2888: 2726: 1342: 3978: 3005: 2498: 796: 585: 483: 4182: 2300: 4101: 3896: 3855: 3800:

Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Knowledge (XXG)

3779: 2580: 2162: 517: 3884: 2841:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

2763: 1765:, as it has over 500 watchers. Is there agreement? If so, I will be happy to state the issue there. 3943: 3843: 3669: 3622: 3575: 3528: 3481: 3434: 3387: 3340: 3293: 3246: 3199: 2779: 2734: 2378: 2345: 2318: 2289: 2242: 2072: 2002: 1877: 1770: 664: 634: 562: 345: 4100:

With regards to your creation and redirecting of all possible combinations of six eyed spider to

3986: 2699: 2658: 2542: 2516: 2509: 2494: 2179: 1461: 952: 879: 812: 737: 684: 647: 298: 257: 216: 175: 134: 2478:

speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

2047: 4028:

explains, music by Bach and contemporaries (and earlier music) doesn't use the French horn but

4079: 4056: 4041: 4033: 3733: 3030: 2981: 2855: 2771: 2718: 2683: 2267: 1990: 1978: 1911: 1793: 1732: 1697: 1531: 1406: 1292: 1244: 1243:

Please fix the remaining links after another move, - I thought you wanted to do it before?? --

1200: 1147: 1097: 1015: 1011: 970: 948: 934: 930: 875: 871: 836: 828: 769: 729: 725: 721: 703: 688: 680: 615: 392: 2483: 2459: 4154: 4140: 4117: 4064: 4009: 3765: 3751: 3115: 3081: 3046: 2966: 2797: 2753: 2614: 2561: 2396: 2363: 2338:

Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

2246: 2219: 2108: 1936: 1927:

as a location for the discussion. What we seem to be disagreeing on is the applicability of

1838: 1717: 1598: 1469: 1351: 1058: 960: 887: 808: 750: 502: 494: 479: 439:

New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online

424: 410: 47: 17: 2842: 2455: 2304: 4202: 3775: 2898: 2158: 2076: 816: 2043: 2454:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under 1829:

that you were not going to continue to pursue this issue, but if you now wish to do so,

3977:

archives at archive.org have been expanded by another 70 issues or so, so in issue 293

3930: 3686: 3685:

Hope I'm not taking your name in vain ... would you like to hunt for an image? - Dank (

3659: 3612: 3565: 3518: 3471: 3424: 3377: 3330: 3283: 3236: 3189: 3143: 3139: 3125: 3092: 3062: 2789: 2775: 2745: 2730: 2388: 2374: 2341: 2308: 2279: 2238: 2233: 2068: 2063: 1998: 1915: 1873: 1830: 1766: 882:

will not be problematic for future links, and needs not be problematic for past links.

660: 630: 552: 335: 4001: 3982: 3102: 2695: 2654: 2536: 2488: 323: 294: 253: 212: 171: 130: 4037: 4029: 3026: 2978: 2918:

subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called

2229: 2214: 2059: 1994: 1527: 1402: 1341:

Readers very rarely type parenthetical disambiguators into the search bar. This is

1196: 611: 545: 445:

TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

282: 4209: 4158: 4144: 4121: 4087: 4068: 4049: 4013: 3990: 3951: 3918: 3904: 3863: 3822: 3673: 3626: 3579: 3532: 3485: 3438: 3391: 3344: 3297: 3250: 3203: 3147: 3129: 3119: 3096: 3085: 3066: 3050: 3034: 3013: 2984: 2945: 2904: 2801: 2783: 2757: 2738: 2703: 2662: 2618: 2591: 2565: 2546: 2523: 2400: 2382: 2367: 2349: 2322: 2293: 2187: 2166: 2110: 2006: 1940: 1881: 1842: 1801: 1774: 1740: 1721: 1705: 1602: 1535: 1473: 1410: 1355: 1300: 1252: 1204: 1155: 1105: 1062: 1023: 978: 964: 942: 891: 844: 777: 754: 711: 696: 668: 638: 619: 599: 566: 528: 506: 487: 467: 349: 302: 261: 220: 179: 138: 2205: 2198: 2039: 2032: 442:

New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists

4150: 4136: 4128: 4113: 4109: 4060: 4025: 4005: 3761: 3747: 3111: 3077: 3042: 2793: 2749: 2642: 2610: 2601: 2557: 2392: 2359: 2103: 1932: 1834: 1713: 1594: 1465: 1347: 1054: 956: 883: 746: 498: 420: 406: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4196: 2892: 2721:. I have reverted your recategorizations. Take a look at any other article in 2391:. I will attempt to pursue greater discernment on such matters in the future. 2865:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

3968: 3271: 3073: 2177: 3110:

length recommended for blurbs is shorter than that recommended for leads.

2038:

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

3506: 3459: 3365: 3318: 3224: 2767: 2714: 2434:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

2090: 1997:

also. Good luck to you both, I have the highest respect for both of you.

835:

other with that name and it is virtually unknown, it doesn't make sense.

118: 4174: 3876: 3835: 3639: 3592: 3545: 3498: 3451: 3404: 3357: 3310: 3263: 3216: 3169: 2958: 2675: 2634: 2259: 315: 274: 233: 192: 151: 110: 3973: 3680:

Knowledge (XXG):Today's_featured_article/Coordinators#Image_suggestions

3647: 3600: 3553: 3412: 3177: 3124:

Before my time (at TFA). Okay, I'll keep that in mind, thanks. - Dank (

702:

Update: the swan swims in the right direction again. - Welcome back! --

241: 3713: 2919: 2469:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

2052: 372: 159: 3794:

New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more

2150:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Winter Story (album series)

803:. All of them refer to Wagner's Lohengrin, page after page. Ditto 200: 3797:

New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects

1833:'s solution of seeking broader consensus makes most sense to me. 2723:

Category:Knowledge (XXG) categories named after American writers

947:

OK. If you would both find it acceptable for me to retarget the

478:

on that page or others, let me know. Very good to see you back.

3678: 2936:

for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards,

1291:

I got impatient and did some myself, my archives and Wagner, --

811:

for Verdi's opera and the composer's surname for others, e.g.

3913: 2923: 1010:

five in a year who ever heard their is a work by Sciarrone? -

25: 4181: