Jump to content

User talk:Elinruby/Archives/2020/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Who didn't win the War of Who Won the War of 1812 (result inconclusive)

@Red Rock Canyon: @Davide King: @Rjensen:

Just to let you know, if you didn't before, how long this inconclusive and unresolvable wrangle has been going (at least 11 years), see (just for a very small sample of examples):

http://americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/1812b-Wk.ppt (RJensen's monograph on this dispute)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War_of_1812

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_of_1812/Who_Won%3F

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My actual essay on is online at http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF Rjensen (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Who didn't win the War of Who Won the War of 1812 (result inconclusive)

@Red Rock Canyon: @Davide King: @Rjensen:

Just to let you know, if you didn't before, how long this inconclusive and unresolvable wrangle has been going (at least 11 years), see (just for a very small sample of examples):

http://americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/1812b-Wk.ppt (RJensen's monograph on this dispute)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War_of_1812

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_of_1812/Who_Won%3F

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My actual essay on is online at http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF Rjensen (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War of 1812, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charleston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Attribution at Vichy governments

Hi, Elinruby, thanks for all your help at Draft:Government of Vichy France. One request, please: for each and every edit that copies content, or translates content, from another article, please use one of these statements as part, or all of the edit summary:

  • Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:FRENCH-ARTICLE-NAME]]; see its history for attribution.
  • Content in this edit is copied from the existing Wikipedia article at [[ENGLISH-ARTICLE-NAME]]; see its history for attribution.

There are not optional, per WP's licensing requirements. There's a duplicate copy of these two models at the very top of the Draft, next to the red Note. I'm starting to go back and add missing attribution from earlier edits, but some of them are devilishly difficult to find, because of all the different places the content comes from; it's *much* easier if you just do it at the same time as the edit which copies or translates material from another article. Thanks, and bonne continuation! Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. The bit I just added is a summary, not a translation, if that helps. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

hey where did you get that stuff about void ab initio? Was it a wiki page? It's true, but I am looking for a source for it. Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If it's just copy-editing, or adding new material from sources and so on, no special edit summary is needed. These copy/translate attribute statements, are *only* for when you copy (including paraphrasing) or translate from another Wikipedia article. And then, they have to go in every time; ten paragraphs translated in ten edits, means ten copies of the same attribution statement in the history. It's easy enough to just paste it in every time.
I just added attribution for this edit of 23:15, June 5, 2020, which came from French Somaliland in World War II; but that one was *really* hard to find. If you can just do them up front, it will be much easier. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mmmkay. I found references for ab initio Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Test

Iroquois Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD failed you notify you

TFD failed to notify you, as required, that they took you to ANI, so just mentioning it for you here. You’ve got nothing to worry about, it’s just a tantrum. I was taken there once by a tantrum-thrower, and didn’t even bother to respond, just watched him whine, and then wilt when he couldn’t get his way. Same will happen here. I’ll be there with a comment later. Nothing will come from this, other than a possible boomerang, so rest easy and just carry on as before. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually he did, but it was an aside in an old post above, titled War of 1812. The ANI discussion was closed when I got there but it looks like it was re-opened with an invitation for you to comment. The quotes are accurate but out of context, and at least one of them is above on my own talk page, which is surely the best place to ask about COI if any. He reminds me of the Dilma Rousseff article where a lot of editors were trying to say that her own remarks at her own impeachment were WP:FRINGE, because it was a minority view. I actually stand by the trolling remark. He was deliberately trying to bait me, because he saw I got mad before when they said that the history of Canada didn't warrant inclusion in the article. Why else would he interrupt a reasonable discussion with a suggestion that we remove Canada from the infobox as a participant? Getting mad in the first place wasn't ideal of course, but repeated off-topic remarks about my ignorance because of something I didn't say drove me to it, and I've been keeping my temper leashed since. I think. They have been arguing about the outcome of that war for years, and people's minds tend to immediately go there. But the other people on the page seem able and willing to discuss.

But what TFD has not done is take down the editwarring template, and I am somewhat concerned about that. Last time I ignored one somebody coming in here to say I was being pushy* thought I was a recidivist ;) Anyway. Life is short and there are collaborators to write about. I need to give people time to think about the the talk page posts from last night. I don't think I will respond unless invited.

  • As in seriously, what's a wedge proposal? Divisive? About some sort of wedge? I assure, this sentence does not make sense, etc --> turned out to be MT for Cunha, the name of the proposal's author ;) Elinruby (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Correction, I did say in the Jon Snow quote that I would suspect COI if this was a different article, but it was on *his* talk page that I asked him if he had written a book about this, the only reason I can imagine for his intransigence. He does seem knowledgeable, like a history professor perhaps, but he clearly isn't used to being asked for evidence or to examine his beliefs.Elinruby (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, honestly, not responding is probably your best policy. I'll head over to ANI and see about posting a comment based on the thoughts and notes I had earlier. I may have to abridge my comments, if it's already been said, or dealt with, but I should say something. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything. Except cued you. I will answer questions if they have them but I think that "the quotes are accurate but out of context" pretty much covers what I have to say. He proposed to remove Canada from the participants list in the infobox. That is not a serious proposal Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw that TFD proposed that Canada could be removed from the infobox because it wasn't one of the two main countries (UK and US). That was ridiculous. YOu look at conflicts like Syria, and they have all manner of small militia and that aren't Countries included in the infobox as current participants. Canada fielded its own militia, and had its own colonial units.If you need my support in any of this, just say so. You're doing a great job. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. My thing is, we have articles that lovingly list every single chalice and registered Heritage objects in chapels all over southern France. We have articles in courtyards in the Louvre and individual episodes of Pinky and the Brain yet on Canadian history we're going straight to "Canadian accounts don't matter"? It's just never going to be ok and I still can't believe this is being proposed with a straight face. Elinruby (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:War of 1812

In response to this, I do not understand exactly what you are referring to when writing I tell them their country doesn't warrant inclusion in a discussion of events that are central to its history. My issue is with the result in the infobox which should list key facts and military stalemate is one of them; do you disagree? What is exactly missing from the infobox? My personal view is that it was a military stalemate, but that both sides (i.e. the United States and Britain/Canada) could claim as win; and indeed that anyone but the Indians won and that the Indians are the real losers, being ethnically cleansed and losing territories; incidentally, this is also the view supported by the majority of historians. What exactly do you disagree about this? I think that military stalemate is not even disputed among those who said it was a win for Canada despite the military stalemate; they do not dispute that de facto it was a military stalemate but they may claim for example that Canada won because they United States invaded their land, wanted to annex it and failed. Similarly, the Unites States may consider it a win because they got the British's blockade off and ended British's impressment. Again, the real losers are the Indians, who have been ethnic cleansed and are the ones who actually lost territories, among other things. So are you opposed to military stalemate because the Indians lost? There were indigenous nations on both sides. However, I do not think that changes the fact it was still a military stalemate. Therefore, if your problem is not about military stalemate, what it is? I already wrote that I absolutely support improving the main body, talking about ethnic cleansing, etc. I just think the result in the infobox is fine, i.e. military stalemate, the Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy. I think those are all key and uncontroversial facts, hence we should report them in the infobox. I am open to add more or add flags to the indigenous nations. It is also not clear to me what you meant by The question is what is right. Please, clarify that. Thank you. My main interest is the result because that is what I researched the most and I feel confident in debating; I do not know how to improve the main body, but I do think you are more qualified than me for that.--Davide King (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As for this, what was your point? Were you referring to the note See Battle of the Thames in Encyclopædia Britannica: "Many British troops were captured and Tecumseh was killed, destroying his Indian alliance and breaking the Indian power in the Ohio and Indiana territories. After this battle, most of the tribes abandoned their association with the British." What does that have to do with the result? I simply oppose removing military infobox as result.--Davide King (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I appreciate that, but ok. You said the outcome field should reflect the article, right? My position on the outcome field is that the discussion is currently a forever war and will always be, endlessly, and therefore should be deleted altogether, is what I personally think. But do what you want, I am looking at other issues, which may change the article considerably. All the missing first names and wikilinks. It's pretty good academic writing but if you are going to say that a majority of the sources really do say a certain thing then we are by gosh going to examine that, and also why that is and in what periods. Which brings us to the first part, which you asked me to clarify. You did at one point say that Canada's view point was not notable. Probably around where people are talking about FRINGE. Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
so you said what you said. So now from an American point of view this story is all about the Star Spangled Banner and rah-rah, we chased off the British, right? That national narrative is clashing with rah-rah silly Americans we ran them off. Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
now take the rah-rah we won stories on each side. That's national myth, like La Marianne or the knitters in Tale of Two Cities, or plucky London pulling through the Blitz in the Underground. The article doesn't currently have a section about this or even a reference to it. I am still undecided how that should be fixed. Now it needs to be short, so it should link to a longer article. The best I've been able to do so far is "creation myth" but that has religious and ethnic connotations. It's an unsolved problem.
@Davide King: The point about the footnote is just: look at the article! Why is that footnote even there? And if we need a footnote for Tecumseh we can do better than the Encyclopedia Britannica surely? With all due respect to the EB I am confident that there are many books written specifically about Tecumseh and probably hundreds about this war. And having been looked up least enough to get that reference, somebody still put him under a Canadian flag. The wrong one, apparently, even, if Shakescene (talk · contribs) is right. That is what I am talking about in the infobox. As to PeaceKeeper's proposal, I voted, don't remember how. I have said that including the defeat of Tecumseh improved the NPOV because excluding him would put him in that same weird position of not being included in something that really matters in your history. I have heard said that the arrival of settlers is sometimes called the disaster. Even this article, which says very little about indigenous people and should say more, does say as its most important point about indigenous people that this was important for them. You and I and I think Shakescene and Deathlibrarian had a discussion about mutually repelled invasions, which I think broke down because the British in the south were not actually repelled. I don't know if discussion got any further there. That is everything I know and think about this infobox. Except that it has a lot of other issues too, like how come the indigenous casualties are unknown? Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Whatever we may think, there are always going to be users who disagree with the result, but that is not a good reason to simply delete it, for what happens are reliable sources and what historians say. We should follow that and the overwhelming consensus, even among those who say one side won, is that it was a military stalemate. Despite your fear of this being a forever war, military stalemate, status quo ante bellum et al have remained a constant, so I do not see the fear; we change the result only when sources change, when the consensus among historians change. If the consensus among historians was that Britain/Canada won, then that is what I would support and I would oppose, in this hypothetical case, the minority which say it was a draw. Again, do you disagree with military stalemate et al?
As for the Canadian view, I was always talking about the result in the infobox, i.e. we should say Military stalemate, not Disputed military stalemate and British/Canadian win or nothing at all. I never meant to say or imply that the Canadian view was not notable to be in the main body; that would be absurd. As for the other issues regarding the main body, I actually support you; I just do not feel myself to be expert enough to actually do that, so by all means I hope you can work on and improve the main body by adding a section about the national myths and indigenous people; I am not going to stop you. As for the footnote, I think is there to support the claim that before his death, Tecumseh's Confederacy was on the British side? Because I do not get either why is there, so we would need to go back to the user who put it to find the reason, maybe.
As for the mutually repulsed invasions, that was just one proposal; this was similar to the addition of the burning of Washington and York, but those are not a big deal to me and I think military stalemate, the Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy are fine. I made that proposal because I saw that wording used in other War of 1812-related infobox such as at List of wars involving the United States.--Davide King (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't status quo ante tho was it? Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you referring to the indigenous people, right? Yes, it was not the status quo ante bellum for them but it was according to and as defined by the Treaty of Ghent.--Davide King (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I don't want to speak for ElinRuby, but the difference here is you say the consensus of historians is that the war was a draw. The article doesn't say that. It says historians have differing views about who won the war. The article says that, because Historians DO have differing views on who won the war. As we already said, just because more historians say the war was a draw, doesn't make it so. For instance, as Elinruby said, there are more US historians than Canadian historians, simply because the US population is 10X the size of the US. There are differing views on who won the war, and the job of us, as wikipedians, so to make sure all views are represented. IN the main article, and in the results box. Why is it fair, that someone comes and scans the article, checks the results box to get a quick summary, and only gets one viewpoint and not another?Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Deeathlibrarian, with all due respect, but when even those who claim one side won still say it was a military stalemate, I do not know what more proof you want. The article does say the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Also, I am not arguing we should say it was draw; I am saying we should say it was a military stalemate, which is de facto true no matter how you see it. [T]here are more US historians than Canadian historians, simply because the US population is 10X the size of the US. Again, this reeks of an alleged national bias when we had a request of comments that was in support of not supporting the claim there is any bias. Since you repeatedly accused me of insulting Canadians by merely following Wikipedia:Fringe theory, which is broad and say viewpoints that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field (i.e. that it was a military stalemate) are still fringe, your claim that just because there are more American historians, then there is a national bias, is insulting to them. Furthermore, I agree with Ironic Luck's comment here. Both American and Canadian historians agree that it was a military stalemate, but that both sides could claim a win (Canada was not annexed; the United States ended British's blockade and impressment).
As for your claim that the job of us, as wikipedians, [is] to make sure all views are represented, Wikipedia actually says Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity, so your claim is absolutely false and an example of false balance. Since you wrote the job of us, as wikipedians, [is] to make sure all views are represented, that would imply representing the American win in the infobox too.--Davide King (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The viewpoint of the Canadian Victory viewpoint is NOT that is was a stalemate. It was that it was a *victory*. Pushing an invading force back to your borders is a victory - Canadians saying something like - "we're still here aren't we? so we must have wone, eh?". I've told you I'm not talking to you about fringe theory any more, you choose to ignore the examples given by Wikipedia policy itself, and just interpret it how you like, that's your call, but I'm not wasting any more time with it. Also yes, I agree the article does say that the "view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate" however, it ALSO says "Historians have differing and complex interpretations of the war" and "Some scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat" *so there is more than one viewpoint*. As for representing the *American Win* viewpoint in the infobox, if people think that is a valid viewpoint with significant support, then yes, it should be. I haven't seen anyone say that, and I would put it in the "tiny minority" category, rather than "significant Minority" though it does have three scholars support it, and at least one of them is a University professor. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
My response here. Please, avoid replying me here (if you want to reply to points I made here, you can write me at my talk page, but please do not reply here) and let's discuss at your talk page instead. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I did ask you not to write me another essay on FRINGE, though technically I suppose you wrote it to Deathlibrarian. So now I am going to put you on notice. Do that again and I will ask you not to post here unless it's a required notification. You asked me a question and I answered it. Then you wrote me another essay about how wrong I am. Please. Go do that somewhere else. Your own page maybe. Elinruby (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if Deathlibrarian did not write here, I would not have replied back. I actually wanted to simply link my reply as I recently did on occasion at Talk:War of 1812 to avoid making it even bigger and tell Deathlibrarian to reply me on my talk page, but I forgot after I clicked to send and it was too late; indeed, I already opened a discussion at Talk:Deathlibrarian, so I do not understand what was the point of replying me here. This should be a discussion between you and me, just like at Talk:Deathlibrarian it should be between Deathlibrarian and I. Please, let's avoid interrupting discussions like this; Deathlibrarian, I am going to send you my reply at your talk page. Now let's go back to where we left. You wrote It wasn't status quo ante tho was it? I replied Are you referring to the indigenous people, right? Yes, it was not the status quo ante bellum for them but it was according to and as defined by the Treaty of Ghent. Is that what you were referring to? Did I understand it correctly?--Davide King (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue isn't people commenting on my talk page. Mathglot (talk · contribs) watches my page because we've worked on big translation projects together like Operation Car Wash and sometimes other users talk to me about them. Or, I guess that's why; I've never asked. But, the point is, his comments tend to be focused and helpful. Here, you asked me (again) about the infobox and I told you (again) what I think, and that I don't care what you put in the inbox (again) because (again) the bigger issue is that the article pays scant attention to other narratives about the war. In particular this sentence that you keep citing about most historians may or may not be true, and I am not convinced, but even supposing it is true it doesn't mean Canadian history is fringe theory. Can you not see how insulting that statement is? Part of the problem here as I see it is this hyperfocus on one optional field in an infobox that should probably be blown up and redesigned in the first place. So repeating the same arguments here from the talk page with emphasis added is just pointless spam. A waste of my time and everyone else's. It is not a rational point of view no matter what type face you put it in.

Moxy (talk · contribs) posted a little gem of a website by the War Museum of Canada on the war of 1812; look at how it is handled there, for reference. Even if it is fringe theory according to you. Meanwhile, do not respond to me here about FRINGE please. I haven't had to ban anyone from my talk page yet and I would prefer to avoid that, but you're changing my mind about that really fast.

Mathglot (talk · contribs) and Moxy (talk · contribs), I am using the templates for the mentions here FYI; if you feel the need to respond please do it in a separate section though, preferably elsewhere, because he will post another wall of text and his notifications are very distracting from other work I am trying to get done. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Then we are done here. Just stop falsely accusing me of saying Canadian history is fringe theory, when that is not what I meant or ever wrote. By all means, just keep working on the main body and let's stop talking about the infobox, I am not stopping you. I just do not understand why you mentioned those users when I was not referring to them and I do not understand what was the point of Deathlibrarian replying here for you.--Davide King (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If there is anything I despise, it's arguing with people who claim that they didn't say what they said. I will find you a few diffs of you talking about fringe theory later, but I'm definitely not doing it now or here on my talk page. To answer a confusion you expressed though, I mentioned Mathglot because he posts here sometimes and I wanted to be sure he didn't take what I was saying to you as also applying to him, because he has commented here about that article and will probably read the section. I mentioned Moxy because he would probably like to know that I like his link, and one of the things I am not getting to because I keep replying to you is telling him so on the talk page. Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) can speak for himself but since I am trying to keep the zombie threads of the war of 1812 talk page from taking root here, let me say that I read his answer this way: the questions you were asking (again) were pretty much the same ones as on the talk page so I read his answer as (again) trying to explain the profoundly insulting nature of your premise. Hopefully that answers your questions. Please do not post any more on this page about your concept of fringe theory.Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
See continual of discussion here.--Davide King (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


utility?

Indonesia has According to the 2019 report by the Ministry of Home Affairs, there are 8,488 urban villages and 74,953 rural villages in Indonesia - if I understand your defence of a random item, then the rest of the 80,000 villages are ready to go? with nothing other than existing than a name. I think ugg boots are far more interesting, than 80,000 stubs with no possibility of expanding... JarrahTree 01:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

we have articles on individual streets in Paris. I understand that there are a lot of villages in the world but ok, we are going to do villages in Nepal, and villages in Canada and Algeria, and villages in India and the Congo, just not in Indonesia for some reason? I definitely lack the knowledge to expand them, but that doesn't mean that everybody does....and Ugg boots, lol, is a forever war. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
that's the exact point - there nothing to expand! they exist, inherent ontology and all - but that's it - nothing else, nada nada... there are no reliable sources, they are nothing but names onlists of things...
well i think wikipedia has lost its way, not just ugg boots, but identifying every damned hamlet on the planet seems to have wandered down the paris lane named eternity (I am sure it doesnt exist but bet someone has tried to create a stub) - in the old days it seemed notability and verifiability were actually criterion which people took seriously, ugh. ugg. (i walk past a shop that claim things about them, every week, and think of you and gnangara and others) JarrahTree 02:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
well here is the thing... In Ugg boots, the issue was that a US court had allowed an American company to trademark a name in common use in Australia, right? And the lawyer for that company were insisting that the Australian usage was not notable because there are fewer Australians...my thing was where do you draw the line between not notable and something like that, or just something that the person has never heard of? I had someone try to delete an article I wrote for the AfroCine project about a Congolese director, no doubt because the editor had never heard of him. Yet he made, as I recall, the first full-length film since the local dictator banned all forms of cinema. I just think that if you are going to draw a line in the sand it can't just be in Indonesia. I have a suggestion though. If we have a wiki project for Indonesia, how about we send all these villages over there and see what they do with them? I understand what you are saying; I have seen five or six of these in uncategorized articles just today. But if anyone can do something with these, it would be them, and if *they* delete as not notable then I guess they would know? Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
PS it would be Éternité... Elinruby (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
meh, (my teenager's speak when they were teenagers) ... the question elsewhere (now there's a very large essay on an editor having very great difficulty with the notion that there possible could not be such an entity in the australian landscape... lets hear it for literalists) As to the sand, and lines, it would help that there is an understanding as to the notion of what wikipedia was some time in the past with WP:NOT - at the early stages every human populated place did not have inherent notability, the creep into the wider and broader sense does not make wikipedia a better place. The total lack of anything that involves WP:RS that is utilised to facilitate WP:V that can substanitate addition of random non notable villages, is in my mind a very sad state. I have no interest in pursuing the detail further, as it seems that the promulgator insists on an inherent right to substantiate such pointless addition (80,000 + to go - huh?) - the answer lies in the hands of others, for I am but a little cog in a much larger circus... JarrahTree 07:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
welp, I am not saying the line shouldn’t be drawn, just that it shouldn’t be arbitrarily drawn. And in my wiki experience there usually is in fact something notable in somebody’s eyes. Adding categories at least gets them closer to somebody who knows what that is. (?) or, you know, you can AfD a few more and somebody will agree with you and I will be doing something else. It isn’t a great system from anyone’s point of view. All I can do is call them as I see it when I see it, right? I’ll kick in an extra quarter for this one the next time I donate for server space Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I don’t mean to pick on that town in particular; those were just two articles that I came across while wikignoming that struck me as particularly obscure, yet apparently important to someone. Elinruby (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 - Infobox - Dispute Resolution

This is a notification that you have been listed as an editor involved in the discussion about the war of 1812 Infobox Results section. The discussion has been listed on the disputes resolution noticeboard, for a third party to provide input. The discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812 Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


Liberation of France

It's kind of amazing, that with 6M+ articles in en-wiki, there isn't one on dedicated to the Liberation of France. There are bits and pieces of it all over the encyclopedia, but no article. Fr-wiki has one, of course (Libération de la France). So, I've created a draft at Draft:Liberation of France. It's a full scaffolding for an article, with top and bottom matter, {{Main}} and {{Further}} links, even images; but no body content at all. I don't think any translation will be required, or only very little; we really do have articles about most or all of the components of Liberation, it's just never been stitched into one article before.

By creating the draft, I've implied an organizational structure, by the choice of section and subsection headers. I'd like feedback on that structure, and I've opened this discussion on the talk page to encourage it. If you can add your thoughts to that discussion it would be great. In addition, I'd be grateful for any contributions you'd like to make to the Draft. Please "claim" a section by adding the {{in use}} Template and save immediately; that should prevent inadvertent edit conflicts. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

wiki source link doesn’t work. Just a side observation; please don’t tackle this until you’ve said whatever you are going to say at ANI. I will look further but currently fretting about other (rl) things and unable to concentrate; knocking out some random easy fixes. Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed that wikisource link; that was just a carryover from my hard disk "French history article" skeleton. By the way, I'm really excited to have Rjensen working on this article with us. Don't know if you're familiar with him, but he's retired historian Richard Jensen, who I know of because I used to follow H-net online (History-Net, one of the earliest online boards, which he founded). Anyway, having a historian working with us on the article, is both rare, and exciting. His first contributions there, were to add the long list of bibliographical works you see in the bottom matter; no doubt many from his personal collection, or perhaps others he's familiar with professionally. We don't have to agree with everything he adds, so in that sense he's like any other editor, has to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE and all that (and is probably better placed to do that than we are), but it's just great to have someone with his skills and depth of experience on the article. More recently, he's been adding to the body content, which is great news as well. Just thought you'd like to know. Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
recognize the name from War of 1812. Incidentally, I don't want to "claim" the Resistance section necessarily, because it is big and other people probably want to work on it also, but given previous studies and Wikiwork I definitely want to work on it. I filled in some of the stuff from the Fall of France from memory of work on Government of Vichy, but there's a fact I need to nail down (who it was that resigned) and I need to find references now, possibly from the cited page but more likely Google Books. With the possible exception of French India, none of it is very obscure. Whoever is adding stuff about colonial forces is doing a good job; is that you? Remember that there are all those Forts of Metz and whatever articles? They didn't delete those did they? Also, I am pretty sure some of the Foreign Legion units were involved, though I would have to look to see which ones. Elinruby (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


War guilt question

I knew almost nothing about this important topic in historiography, other than the fact that it existed. Having read most of the Featured Article about it in French (with the German name), I know a lot more. Fascinating topic. It's now at Draft:War guilt question. I don't plan on translating the whole thing, just the lead, plus maybe a paragraph or two each from the more important sections of the original, and then spring it loose at en-wiki. Kind of amazing that with 6M+ articles here, we didn't already have one on this. Coupled with Draft:Liberation of France and Draft:Government of Vichy France, that's three pretty important topics we don't have. I wonder how many more are out there? Do you know the "not-in-other-language" tool at wmflabs? It's really very cool. I wonder how many top-importance Portuguese articles we don't have? If you want to pick one, I'll work on it with you. If you don't know the tool, it's here. You have to fiddle around a bit, to figure out how to use it, but then it's easy, and very cool. Mathglot (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Who places Template:Underlinked?

Moved from User talk:Mathglot § Quick question

I had a look at the first six {{Underlinked}} templates listed under transclusions at Who links here? and they were all placed by individuals:

Why do you believe it's an automated process? Are you seeing lots of them created close together in time? It still could be that the users above ran a bot to do that and we missed that, but normally bots are supposed to identify themselves in the edit summary, and that's not the case for any of these. (The user links above are no-pings, so you won't get anybody coming to this discussion.) Mathglot (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is, or perhaps was, somehow automated because when twiddling my thumbs I often pick up items from that list, sort of digital pacing, so I see a lot of them. And way too many are something along the lines of
  • "Joe Blow is a Seattle musician. He plays guitar"
  • "(Some name) is a village in x."
  • "(name) is a protein that x"

in which everything that could conceivably be wikilinked already is. This is annoying and not something a human would do imho, but what prompted me to ask was an article that definitely should not be wikilinked, yet keeps being listed. It's no more than an idle wonder, if you don't know the answer, definitely lower priority than the WW2 stuff you are trying to roll out right now. Elinruby (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


List of Third Republic ministers of the Pétain administration moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of Third Republic ministers of the Pétain administration, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:French National Committee

Thought I could just crank this out in an afternoon, but it ended up taking longer, because the French article was unsourced in some places I needed it to be, and that took me down the garden path, and I found a couple of great sources and learned all about Darlan changing sides from Petain to the Allies, and about Henri Giraud who was kind of a competitor of De Gaulle (in Africa) for leadership of the Free French, until they (kind of) joined forces, by merging their respective organizations, the Draft:French National Committee of CDG (successor to Empire Defense Council), and Giraud's fr:Commandement en chef français civil et militaire to create the French Committee of National Liberation. Giraud was an interesting character; tried to convince Eisenhower to make him supreme commander in North Africa, which wold have meant him taking over Eisenhower's job, as the Allied invasion was to take place the next day. Annnnyway...

I think the Draft is ready, in the sense that all the translation is done, but the original is a stub so so is this, and it could probably be expanded quite a bit, if we wanted to get more into the stuff about Darlan and Giraud. For now, I'm pretty done with it. I've left it there in case you wanted to take a look, before I move it to Mainspace. Darlan is really an interesting character too; might want to go back and find out more about him. Going back to the other three drafts, now. Have you seen Draft:War guilt question? Very interesting and thorny issue, in the interwar period. A lot of scholarship on it during Weimar, but interestingly has had a resurgence with lots of attention lately, as well. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I almost forgot: best insulting description I've read of someone lately, was this one from an American commander, talking about Darlan, and said that he was "a needle-nosed, sharp-chinned little weasel". Hah! Doesn't that make you want to learn more about him? Check out pages 353-354 at Winston Groom's 1942: The Year That Tried Men's Souls. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, check out the great responses by A.S. Brown at Talk:Charles Corbin#Long sections. They are obviously really knowledgeable about history, and it would be great to work with them at the Drafts we're working on, or at any article, really.

By the way, my next Draft will probably be about the high command in North Africa under Henri Giraud (fr:Commandement en chef français civil et militaire), yet another really important piece of French WW II history that is barely touched on at en-wiki. He's the general whose forces based out of Algiers merged with de Gaulle's French National Committee to form a single command under Free France called the French Committee of National Liberation. Giraud was a petulant, egotistical, and sulky man, but probably a brilliant general; I look forward to doing this one.

I haven't forgotten about the other drafts, and I bounce back and forth between getting them ready for release, and finding out about new stuff, like Giraud and the No. African command, which desperately needs an article. I think I'm going to move to a new strategy: instead of translating the entire, long French article this time, which could take a while, I'll probably translate just the lead, include sufficient refs and top/bottom matter, and release it with an {{Expand language}} notice. I think a lot of editors are more likely to work on an existing article, than create one from scratch. I've got it down to a system, where creating the scaffolding isn't so hard, then plugging in a translated lead and some refs, then on to the next one. Also, having a short article, even a stub amounting to not much more than a definition, is infinitely preferable to not having anything at all, don't you think? For one thing, it resolves all those red links, it gives us someplace to link through Wikidata to all the other language Wikipedia articles about the topic, and it gives a beachhead so to speak, where other editors can work to expand the article. I can probably do two a day like that, or even more maybe, if I didn't get distracted on topics I don't know about and ought to, but then, that's one of the ways I find new things to work on. Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby/Archives/2020/July&oldid=1120604915"