User talk:Cobblet/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Question

Hi Cobblet. Do you can see here, here and here?. Currently we have a lot of cities which have fewewr pageviews than Newport from Cadriff and not vital cities from Syberia, while Religion is underrepresented if we compare it to art. It seems to me that physical geography is also littly underrepresented. What do you think about more bussiness people at the level 4 to include Mark Zuckerberg among 40 bussiness people? We have two field hockey players at the level 4 despite fact that we have one futsal player at the level 5 and two beach volleyball players at the level 5. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I'll try to address your points one by one:

• I don't actually know how field hockey and futsal compare in terms of popularity – it's not clear to me that futsal is more popular. And even if it were, it seems likely that these two field hockey players are better known than any futsal player. (The same seems to be true with respect to field hockey players vs. volleyball players, even though volleyball is again quite a popular sport.) Assuming that you're right that futsal needs more representation, improving our coverage of futsal doesn't necessarily mean we have to add more futsal biographies; you could add futsal to level 4 and futsal competitions on level 5, for instance. The list of people is just one subsection of the list as a whole.
• I don't know any of these musicians well enough to comment on your suggested swaps. But IMO Youtube hits are a poor way of assessing the vitality of a song. Is a song that one person clicks on 1000 times equally as vital as a song 500 people click on twice?
• Ulan-Ude is the only Siberian city that I think is obvious to remove, and I'm slightly surprised that neither Novokuznetsk nor Kemerovo are included, while Magadan or Norilsk could be interesting as well. But all this is minor quibbling: far more serious is the omission of most Russian federal subjects – if we're listing first-level subdivisions of European countries as small as Switzerland and Ireland it makes no sense not to do it for Russia. The list of country subdivisions needs urgent review.
• It does seem like more mythological characters could be added.
• Physical geography seems to be way below quota at level 5 so I don't see why it couldn't or shouldn't be expanded.
• We've definitely discussed listing Zuckerberg vs. Facebook in the past – check the archives. Cobblet (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I will answer you point by point as well too (for more clear discuss)

• I have gave you specific example: 1we have two field hockey players at the level 4...and one futsal at the level 5... Despite fact that we have fewer futsal players at the level 5 than field hockey players at the level 4 we have controversial people such like Sean Garnier at the level 5. It could be argument that maybe sport is overrepresented even at the level 4. Anyway thinkink about it more until we have 1200 sport figures at the level 5 and 100 at the level 4 I would although swap two field hockey players for William G. Morgan at the level 4. Level 5 is difficult for comprasion among people each other becaiuse of it still is not perfectly diversited yet but I hope it will be better in future (for example do not need 5 bowling players when they are focused such like kabaddi players for popular sport and we have 26 figure skaters vs one ski jumper despite fact that ski jumping the most popular sport in some countries for example Slovenia). BTW I recently have added two go players to the list. Currently we have two old Japan players and one modern Chinese player, despite fact that Go is very popular in Japan for centuries and quite popular in China for thousands years, do you know any notable chinese player from acient era?

I'm not sure you understood the point I was trying to make: just because activity A is more popular than activity B does not mean that we must have more people who represent activity A than people who represent activity B. It only means that we should have more articles about activity A than activity B, and those articles may not have to be biographical articles. There's no reason to include ancient Chinese go players if none of them made particularly deep contributions to the game. It's the same reason we should not include any chess players before Paul Morphy – nobody before him and Steinitz can be said to have possessed any deep insight into how chess works. By the way, although I don't know much about go, I suspect we should probably include at least one modern go player from Korea. Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have gave specific examples about music because of 1200 musicans it is to few (until we have 15 000 people). It is probably underrepresented part of people section. Check pageviews for musicans: :[1] (added to my sandbox musicans from artistics section for this analyse) and check pageviews sport figures: [2]. It seems to me that section: "artists etc." could be split into two cateegories and section with composers be increased. Musicans and sport figures "generally" do not make actual constribute to society so comprasion based on popularity something mean in that case. Other sections maybe also do not ideal in quotas but these two are obviously the most complete (1210/1200 musicans and ~~1150/1200 sports figures) so we are already to compere and discuss these two. Section about people who make actual constribute to society could be realise when project of Automated classification of article importance will have more interests. What do you think about change quotas at musicans and sport figures when diversity will be littly more stabile/appreciated by consensus at the sections?

There are far too many of both musicians and sportspeople at level 5 – I would not hesitate to cut either section by at least 25%. I don't know why the proportions between the different groups of people on the level 4 list, which have come about through lengthy discussion and consensus-building, aren't being followed at level 5. For example, politicians, writers and scientists should be the biggest sections by proportion. In fact I think they should probably be even bigger at level 5 than they are at level 4. For example, if we take diversity seriously, we should strive to have every significant modern and historical country represented by a biography at level 5, and for most countries, that person is going to be a politician. Similarly, any modern or extinct language with a significant written literature should probably be represented by a writer. And a problem I noticed with looking for scientists to add to level 4 is that a lot of major scientific discoveries are made by a team of scientists, and for the list to make sense one either has to include all of them or none of them. At level 4 we usually don't have room to include all of them, so often we end up including none of them, which means that a lot of scientific breakthroughs are not represented. At level 5 we should have room to fix this problem by including all the scientists who made large contributions to solving major scientific problems. Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume that people were simply adding their favourite musicians and sportspeople to the Level 5 list. This is a problem in the other sections as well. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cobblet, @Susmuffin: I doubt that active editors were adding their favourites musicans and sport people to these sections and belive that they did honest effort to make diversity list with gender, nationality etc. but unfortunetly number of articles is so large that it seriously need more various engaged people for consensus (although other section general video game topics frankly strike me as gallery for favourite video game topics). I do not know what number of quota for musicansand sport figures would be the best but I think that section with latin music is underrepresented if we compare it with soccer players from central and south america (I would add Zequinha de Abreu ahead someone like Nilton Santos or Arthur Friedenreich and I would add Elis Regina/Juanes ahead someone like Sócrates or Teófilo Cubillas). Some sport figures also have a lot of pageviews also due to fact a lot of Wikipedians man are interested in sport and edit these articles. If level 4 need be more diversited I think that bussiness people and criminals are really more underrepresented than any other section. I see in which way sciencefists are vital or not covered at this level but for example in Poland, Slovakian highwayman Juraj Janosik is more known than Polish Ignacy Łukasiewicz so I also see how other global notable criminals are vital and underrepresented at this level. BTW, I have prepared in my sandbox how could look new proces for the level 5, what do you think about start it at talk page, are yoiu interested in it? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've always had my doubts about the vitality of Łukasiewicz at level 4. I also agree that folk heroes like Janosik are likely underrepresented. I'm not sure about the footballers, but Abreu doesn't seem that vital to me when Ernesto Nazareth, Agustín Barrios and Alberto Ginastera are also all missing. I also note that on the Portuguese Wikipedia, a writer like Ferreira Gullar has several times more viewers than Abreu does. I don't currently participate in the level 5 discussions so I don't think I'm in a position to critique the process. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I though about try make more space for physical geography and more space for philosophy and religion (even despite fact we are under quota) but thinkink about it more until section are not complete we not necesarilly need make changes in quotas and maybe cities would not be first which is over represented.
• I though about remove some sport figures at the level 4 to add more bussiness people and zuckerberg at the level 4. Anyway we are well under quota among people (1993/2000) so maybe we dom not removing people but Zuckerberg should be added and I would see him among 40 bussiness people. Zzuckerberg is more notable than recent sport figures listed at this level because of he had awards such like: "mosot influencial personality of the year" and facebook is also related with Instagram which is already listed at the level 5. We also have people who are popular thank to Instagram at the level 5 so we could add Zucerberg to regarded him above them. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

While Mark Zuckerberg is a influential man, his creation is more influential than he is. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Susmuffin:, @Cobblet I agree that creation of Mark Zuckerberg is more vital than he is. I also think that The Walt Disney Company is more vital than Walt Disney. I just have made a lot of suggestionsat the level 3 and I have started nomination for removing Walt Disney. Let's see how it will go. I think that some not vital articles at the level 3 take space for other which could be added such like apple, lemon, cat etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd definitely oppose the addition of any individual fruits. Things like pig, sheep or cotton are far more essential to the history of human civilization. Cobblet (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Moroccan Provinces and Prefectures

Thank you for the revert; I wasn't sure whether to stick with the move, but you kind of made my decision for me. Anyway, while the resulting redirect from my unintentional move is still up, would it be wise to create similar redirects for other provinces where the names without "Province" or "Prefecture" aren't in use? Thanks again! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: Most provinces and prefectures share the name of their capital city (which is why appending "Province"/"Prefecture" to the name is the norm); but for ones that don't, similar redirects would make sense. Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Southern Provinces

Please don't empty categories out of process (especially with misleading edit summaries). If you feel this should be deleted, propose it at WP:CFD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Questions/Suggestions about VA

Hi Cobblet, since we have quite few active editors at VA project being well under quota at tle level 3 I decided shared with you some thoughts and quyestions on your talk page point by point. Currently we are during reorganisation and so I have some questions to you:

1. [3] - Here you have said that you would support addition of Chinese philosophy to the level 3, meanwhile here you nominated it to remove from the level 4. Why? It was strategical way to escape from overlap when expanded version was well under construction? Actually how was looking process at the time on the level 4?

   We were well over 10,000 articles at the time and I was trying to find significant cuts. See also my comments here. One distinction I failed to articulate well is that when we speak of Indian and Chinese philosophy we are not just talking about the philosophy of modern India and China, but also the entire history of philosophical thought starting from ancient India and China. Indian philosophy and Chinese philosophy should be compared to Western philosophy and Islamic philosophy rather than French or German philosophy, distinctions which did not exist until after the Renaissance.

2. What do you think about add Simone de Beauvoir to the level 3? In context of 20th century/history of last 100 years she is less vital than someone Mother Teresa and John Paul II who was very long time Pope during the Cold War but IMO we should have more than one woman philosopher on the level 3. Would you also suport Suzette Haden Elgin and Laadan to the level 5? I would support give priority to FA for Simone de Beaviour ahead of more ntable people.

   I'm OK with only listing one feminist philosopher as long as feminism remains on the list. I know very little about science fiction and I hadn't heard of Elgin.

3. [4] – Here tere was discussion about religious philosophers. [5] – and here is interesing list where Ashoka is listed among religious leaders. What do you think about addition of Ashoka to politicians (and maybe also add or swap Constantin for other politician) to cover Polics figures who made constribution to history of religion. Currently Abrahamic religious are underrepresented if we consider that some philosophers debatetly can be count as religious leaders but considering how other articles we also cover on the level 3 these religions are not underrepresented IMO. I would also suport addition of Zoroaster ahead of Zorroastrianism because of Zorroastrianism is more niche religion than for ex mple Sikhism (wchich properly is ahead of Guru Nanak). People on the Internet quite often look for information do Zoroaster was influential for Greek philosophy. Biographies who debately are not historical (Just like Homer) should Get references on the list, something like : < r e f > Not all historians consider them as historical peoople < / r e f >. Homer certainly has priority for FA when it is difficult to find better and more promient article. Good encyclopedia should cover extremaly important semi-mythical people but also should have also references when constain list of biographies.

   Yes, it would make a lot of sense to list Ashoka, but I personally won't propose adding any biographies as I believe we should have fewer of them rather than more. I don't think it's good or necessary to annotate the list in the way you're suggesting – the more you add things like that, the more you distract people from the list itself. We need more discussions about what the list should contain and fewer discussions about whether to call Ford a "businessman" or a "businessperson."

4. What do you think about add Folk religion to level 3? Recently you were supporting it by saling: „Many cultures around the world are characterized by such practices.” I agree with that. We have Syncretism and I also made nomination to add something like Fertility rite (which IMO is vital just as Veneration of the dead) for level4. Article about folk religion should require attention of community even if it is academic concept. In this article currently there are quite many information about Chineese folk but there are not quite many information about other cultures, for example about conservative tradition from Eastern Europe. To give example why folk religion is vital culturally nearly just like religion itself and always has impact on society... I could use Jezisek/Infant Jesus of Prague, cs:Tříkrálová sbírka, Pomlazka/Easter Monday.. These stil are common trqadition in Czech Republic (the second one is similar to d:Q28873654 and Sternsinger) despite fact Czech Republic "has less significant statistics" (which are nothing other like vague approximation). I think it could be argument to understand why Folk religion should get priority for FA among 50+ religious topics. People added to the level 5 either of Carol of the Bells (influented by other Ukrainian song Shchedryk (song)) and Here We Come A-wassailing (see: [6]) despite fact honestly even Wassailing and Kolyadka/schedrivka should not be among 50 000 the most import ant topice of Wikipedia. Francis of Assisi as theologian is fundator of Nativity play wchich had basic influence on cult of Christ Child and is quite fundamental for many folklore custom in whole Europe (and in the western world) like: Nativity scene, Christmas Carol etc. (Also various hundrets of regional, including or Wassailing or Schedrivka). I do not see how something like White Christmas (song) (redutant to Christmas Carol and Irving Berlin who is also listed) can be vital to human knowlage among 10 000 articles (on the same level where we list theology !).

   I still think folk religion is a worthwhile addition. A well thought-out and well written nomination might help it pass.

5. Do you think that swapping Kafka for Kepler would be better choice than for example swapping Poe for Roosvelt when we have already two USA Presidents? We need to remember thad Galileo is vital due to invention of the telescope but he did not so significant constribution to the solar system. If Kepler (and probably Galileo too) would not exist most probably all Copernicus’ Works and historical sources about him would be destroyed by Church how it was possibile. Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler are globalny significant in context of whole history meanwhile Greek scientifists/philodophers are maybe more focussed in context of Western World. Kafka is vital writer but we have many writers from last two centuries and French literature (probably more important) is Only sketchy represented by philosopher. [7] Here is link where Maunus (as person who edit Danish Wikipedia) suggested that Dostoyevsky is more vital than Twain, meanwhile Gizza said to me that he would chose Andersen when I suggested also Chaucer and Hugo on his talk page. Discussion about final list of writers could be interesing. Gizza probably would comparing Andersen to Grimm Brothers (he also mentioned them on the VA level 3 talk page) but Andersen should not be compared to them. His impact of culture could be compared to Grimm's Brothers or other single literature works removed while ago (or rejected articles like Greek Mythology) but as "personalities" Grimm Brothers generally were only reschearers of the western folklore (they were influented by earlier folklore/writers, and their further impact also was quite strongly influented by other people, for example Hansel and Gretel were popularised thank to Alexander Afanasyev and by efforts of translators, by introducing slavic version of Bogeyman to this tale); meanwhile Andersen was poeth and author. He was one of two major figures in The Danish Golden Age. His the most famous creations were even showed/used (actually as main topic) for dozen of minutes in interesing documentaryfilm about pscychoanalysis and had significant influence on English literature (according to this source). Including Andersen to to L3 also naturally would not be any western bias because of his works are more appreciated in Far East than in the West nowdays (according to sources). When we list two entertainment Japanese figures (both gets less hits on Japanese Wikipedia than Miyamoto Musashi and this difference is even higher on English Wikipedia . This gives some rationale if we consider that Miamuto Mushashi was also artist and if we consider that Japanese literaturę is not very well known abroad.) we should definietly keep 16-21 writers among ~~130 people (IMO better option than e g. including Hirohito in context of last 100 years/20th century). However it is just my opinion, what do you think about it at all?

   I actually think Kafka's more vital than Kepler. I don't think we need another Enlightenment-era mathematician-astronomer any more than we need, say, another quantum physicist like Planck. On the other hand I think it's reasonable to argue that Kafka is the single most influential writer of the 20th century. I personally don't rate Poe or Andersen as highly as others seem to do.

   My point about Kepler alluded that Copernicus/Kepler/Galileo combinetly were more influential for whole world than for example Washington/Lincoln/Rooesvlelt. The most significant non-German scientist IMO is James Watt (PBP even was suggesting him when we did not have Georhge Washington yet on the list and Rreagan even suggested to maybe pick Andrew Carnegie so I belive James Watt would have more reasonable chance than any German scientistst) because of Watt in modern encyclopedias is considered as significant figure for industrial revolution just like Gutenberg in context of end the medieval era.

6. What do you think to add theology and morality on the level 3 ? We have philosophy on the level 1 and ethics on the level 2 but we list also geography on the level 2 when Earth is level 1 article so I would consider add morality and theology. What do you think? In my opinion these two could be better option than philosophy of religion

   Morality seems redundant to ethics. I don't consider theology more essential than the critical study of any other specific aspect of culture, such as literary criticism.

7. In the archives on the level 4 talk page we can find plenty of dicsussions about Internet businessmen and other businessmen. But inventor of e-mail (Ray Tomlinson) never has been nominated. He died two years ago . What do you think about that suggestion to the level 4?

   There must be dozens of programmers of comparable vitality to Tomlinson – see List of pioneers in computer science for examples. In telecommunications more generally, somebody like Charles K. Kao also seems more vital.

8. Could you live with swap Louis Armstrong for pop art and Elvis Presley for Michael Jackson? And would you suport move Sappho from writers to composers? It does not sound supermely but it makes perfect sense for the diversity of musicians at the moment. In my opinion beter option is having either of jazz and pop art than having Jazz and Louis Armstrong but not general article: "pop art" (especially when we list two jazz songs on the level 4, not composed by Armstrong). Elvis is clearly more vital than Jackson (according to Internet sources his songs are even played on Weddings and Funerals) but I think that better option would be have two pop representants (band and one person) from two diffrent generes and littly other times ahead of dozen certain important religious figures. Michael Jackson has not traditional impact like Presley but at least his impact on music was way less limited to the United States than Elvis' impact (Here I found that contigent). Sappho should be listed among composers for the diversity when we have Voltaire among writers and Mary Wollstonecraft among philosophers. Greek lyric describes her as composer so she could fit to section "musicians" as one womanfor the diversity. She should be known as composer such like Pythagoras should be known as philosopher. I would also suport these your proposals to the level 3 with Popart (especially due to fact that we list Video games wchich is specific young entertainment strongly dominated by men) and maybe I would alsp consider try readd Cher to the level 4 until I would consider add Michael Jackson to the level 3 but I am not sure about that. It just me (I am opened for discussion and various proposals, I could live and accept changes, maybe my are wrong). What do you think about that point at all?

   I wouldn't mind swapping Elvis for Jackson, but pop art is a specific art movement (Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein) that has nothing to do with jazz. Unless you can hum me a tune by Sappho, she should be considered a writer.

   There are people who are at least interested in early hisory of music more than for newer generes of music (see [8] [9]) when Voltaire (according to wikidata mainly considered as Philosopher) is listed among writers I do not see why we can not add Sappho to musicians for the diversity. We have already 7 man musician figures and 3 classical composers are from Germany, it would be really better option than removing Wagner for diverity reasons. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

9. Currently on the level 3 we have four Visual artists from 19th century (when we constain similar numbar of crime related people on the level 4), meanwhile we do not cover any pure military figure except Joan of Arc (Hanibal/Cortes), historical events like Norman Conquest of England or general articles for crime, like Piracy. I think we could swap at least one Visual artist from 19th century for Imhotep (This architect and polymath was considered as god for millenium so it is something important to human knowlage) to spread out it for time diversity. I support add traditional Chinese medicine to the level 4 and Iif we decise have either of Imothep and Hippocrates on the level 3 I also would probably suport add something related with medicine for Native Americans. But it just me. What do you think, is this possible?

   I'm no longer so keen on listing Imhotep – is he really that much better of a choice than Pythagoras was?

   I am OK with listing 3 Greek philoophers (We have already 3 Greek philosophers along with Aristotele) as long as Greek philosophy remains on the list . If we decide to have anyone who is mainly known as architect; IMO Imhotep would be definietly the one to have. I do not think any other architect would have any chance to be listed on this level. Recent culture/art figures should have better fame in the country than countrymen from other fields to be considered vital for the level 3. Among biographies who currently get priority for featured article among 1000 articles, Leonardo da Vinci is good example because of he is nowdays more popular in Italy than Francis of Assisi and is truly global figure. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

10. Some time ago you made discussion to reorking archotecture section. It did not get any attention. What do you think to try start it again until we decise consider add more geographical objects? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

    It did get some attention: we removed all the architectural works except the ones I didn't want removed, and we added history of architecture. I don't enjoy repeating myself – I'd rather listen to fresh opinions. Cobblet (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Your recent editing history at List of most visited museums 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to template you like this, but I do this in order to leave the same warning on the user talk page of every user involved. This way, I'm not seen as "playing favorites" or "taking sides" in the dispute. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles

Hey, could you do me and the rest of the project a favor? Don't criticize GuzzyG like that. Thanks, pbp 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edits in Mirepoix (cuisine)

I had to undo your edits in Mirepoix. Pipelinking "Mirepoix" was not ideal in that case as all the three villages/towns that're named 'Mirepoix' lie in Languedoc; the additional department name acted as a crucial disambiguator. Kinda felt like WP:NOTBROKEN as well, but the first reason was the stronger one for my decision to revert. I hope you have no concerns in light of this. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out there are multiple places named Mirepoix – I had not realized this. My concern with the reference to Ariège is that it is anachronistic in this context. It's unnatural and jarring to refer to the Duke of Mirepoix and the family of Lévis as "lords of Mirepoix, Ariège in Languedoc" when Ariège did not exist in the Duke's lifetime and for most of the lordship's existence "since the 11th century." I note that Mirepoix, Gers was not situated in the historic province of Languedoc, and the other Mirepoix which was in Languedoc is usually disambiguated as Mirepoix-sur-Tarn. So I don't have a problem with simply referring to "lords of Mirepoix in Languedoc", but if you insist on keeping some sort of disambiguation, something like "lords of Mirepoix in Languedoc (nowadays located in the department of Ariège) since the 11th century" would also avoid the anachronism. Cobblet (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I apologise I had not known or considered the anachronism. You are probably right about Mirepoix, Ariège being the only "Mirepoix" in Languedoc, now that I recheck—but I would still prefer to have some form of disambiguation (for the sake of clarity at the cost of a little more verbiage) and "lords of Mirepoix in Languedoc (nowadays located in the department of Ariège) since the 11th century" sounds perfect to me. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Chess diagrams

I will stop the war editing. However, the Smith-Morra gambit's diagrams are not excessive, because they involve three movements: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3. NOT JUST one. Also if you are deleting the variations you also should delete the diagrams of Open Sicilian: 2.Nf3 and 3.d4. That also put emphasis in the main line. Additionally the Nimzovich variations are the two main lines in which quoting your "much prominence as the main lines" should be noted. Finally, the Wikipedia policy clearly stat that "Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" I never provide any teaching material and I develop the main lines of the articles. Also as the entry says "Game guides" if you click on the link it redirects to "are instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games". Also, I am "summarizing the main actions the player performs in the game" that is the main intent of an encyclopedic article. Kind regards. Mycoandres (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mycoandres: Even a dedicated instructional book on the Morra is highly unlikely to put a diagram after every move in the sequence. So why should a Wikipedia article summarizing the entire Sicilian Defence do so? If "articles should not read like textbooks", they most definitely should not read as being even more detailed than textbooks. The Open Sicilian is the main line of the Sicilian Defence – that is exactly why we give it more diagrams than the Nimzovich, which is a sideline. But even for the various Open Sicilians, we do not put separate diagrams after 3.d4 and 3...cxd4. Putting a diagram after every move would not be "summarizing". Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I think that the cost of printing diagrams in new pages in a book may increase the cost for the publisher, and limit them to include those diagrams. I agree, however, that Wikipedia should not summarize the entire Defense, but due to the largest importance of the topic and the capability to provide a degree of detail that helps people who are not so familiarized with the algebraic notation, the diagrams should be included. Also, when you quote this: "Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" you made the quotation incomplete. I never use leading questions or include systematic problem solutions, trying to make my modifications sound like "a textbook", is a false statement. You (I do not understand who are "we") do not add diagrams because you do not want to, not because they are superfluous or not summarized the information. "An image worth a thousand words" may be the best example of summarizing. Mycoandres (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Mycoandres

I say "we" because at least three editors including myself are in agreement that the number of diagrams you wanted to include are indeed superfluous. If we were to consistently do what you want to do and add a diagram to illustrate the position after every single move in every single variation mentioned in the article, the article would look absurd – worse than a textbook, as I said before. The community has repeatedly asked for an interactive chess viewer which would achieve what you're looking for without cluttering the article with diagrams. Unfortunately, it appears to remain a low priority for Wikimedia. Cobblet (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Kalabakan District

Excellent work with the Kalabakan District article. Our articles on the relevant matters are very out of date. I was wondering if you'd be interested in putting it up to the WP:DYK process? It tends to lack non-American and non-biographical articles, and this is both of those things. Also perhaps a nice reward for fixing a two year hole in Wikipedia. Best, CMD (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the appreciation. It's very nice to meet someone else who also cares about these sorts of things. I'm afraid I'm not terribly interested in things like DYK – for me, writing the article is its own reward. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I must say my interest in local government has not translated into the Wikipedia productivity that yours has. Anyway, I thought the article worth putting up myself (link), although there's no need for any actions on your end. Best, CMD (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kalabakan District

On 24 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kalabakan District, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name of Malaysia's Kalabakan District comes from the words "can eat" in a local language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kalabakan District. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kalabakan District), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

County of Brant

In the lead of County of Brant, you added "Haldimand Tract, traditional territory of the Neutral, Mississauga, and Haudenosaunee peoples". Perhaps I missed it, but neither source cited mentions this was a traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if you don't consider it appropriate to describe the land specifically granted under the Haldimand Proclamation to the Six Nations as their "traditional" territory, the fact is that the Haudenosaunee were also present in that part of Ontario much earlier: see Iroquois settlement of the north shore of Lake Ontario and also Dish With One Spoon, an Anishinaabe–Haudenosaunee agreement covering all of southern Ontario. For instance, the Canadian Encyclopedia says, "The territory that now forms the Six Nations reserve was formerly Haudenosaunee hunting grounds." I have added that article as a source. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Brockville

Please take a moment to respond at Talk:Brockville#Indigenous history. Most of my edits are to city articles in the US and Canada, and I remove non-specific edits about Indigenous people all the time. When the edits are specific to the city or town I am happy to expand the content, but when the edit says "this town is located within a 1000 mile stretch of land once occupied by a band of Indigenous people", I delete it, because it is out-of-scope of the article. I think this one may need to go to an RfC though. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mexican municipalities...

Hey Cobblet. Thank you for all your edits, especially your pristine articles about redlinked Mexican municipalities. I've seen your work for some time now and it's really impressive. I imagine you're very busy and have a wishlist of work you want to do on here before anything some random guy suggests anyways, but I'd be immensely appreciative if you could give Granados Municipality, Sonora some attention, maybe even a similar treatment. The northern states are usually pretty ignored, but I'm not exactly great at geography articles yet. My best regards. JTtheOG (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words JT! I very much appreciate your review of the pages I create and your contributions to the Latin American 10,000 challenge as well. I'm finally down to the ten last redlinked Mexican municipalities, so I might be able to take a look at Granados at some point. I take it you have some connection to the place? Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There's only ten left? That's awesome, great work. Do you have any connection to the country yourself? My dad's from Granados and it's one of my favorite places in the world to visit. Generations of his family lived there for centuries ever since their immigration from Spain. JTtheOG (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any specific connection to Mexico, but I like travelling in Latin America, and I like learning and writing about Latin America. Mexico has ended up being a big focus of mine mostly because it's a lot easier to find good sources for Mexican localities than for many other places around the world that I'd also like to write about. From the pics I can see online, Granados looks absolutely gorgeous. If you have any good photos to upload to Commons, I'll try to work them into the article when I get around to it. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi thanks for creating Luis Moya, Zacatecas. Is it partly based on a translation of the es.wiki article? If so I need to add a template to the article talk page. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! It is my own work. Cobblet (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

ok thanks for confirming. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Chinese County figures

The county area and population figures are from the Chinese Wikipedia.

@AridCeption: That's not good enough: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please see WP:CIRCULAR. Cobblet (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge fifth anniversary

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Cobblet for expanding Brockville during the fifth year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)