User talk:Indagate
(Redirected from User talk:Indagate/sandbox1)
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Administrators' newsletter – August 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).
Technical news
- Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
- Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ
Question
[edit]You helped me in a great way awhile back. But it’s been a little bit of time, and I was wondering how I access the invisible sections at the top when doing edits. I know there are maximums for the plot section. Can you walk me through how I would get to the invisible area when I am doing edits. I’m sorry to bother you. Thank you for whatever help you can give:) Helipilot68 (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not all articles have invisible comments, but when used appear in the edit box only, in between <!-- and --> Indagate (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to respond—and your patience. My very best to you.🤙🤙 Helipilot68 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which
applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
. - A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
- Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
- The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
- Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Administrators' newsletter – October 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
- Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
- An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
- Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).
Miscellaneous
- If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
Paraverse edit
[edit]Hello, I’m not too sure why you deleted the information table regarding the three Paraverse shows, please could you explain Franchisegeek (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- hey, did you not see my edit summary which explained revert? Indagate (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and I disagree with it, as the information is relevant as they are all part of an interconnected TV franchise starting with the main show Death in Paradise, so I added that information table so that people could look and see if characters have crossed over etc without having to be a fan of all three shows as I now know so me people may not to back and watch 13+ series of Death in Paradise to know about a character Franchisegeek (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- That article is for the series Death in Paradise, not a franchise article. The characters for that series are already listed, and characters for the other series are listed in their own articles where they belong. Indagate (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok I can respect that, however I have seen other articles listing whole franchises as well as the individual TV shows Franchisegeek (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- There are TV franchises which are notable enough as a franchise for their own article. Paradise is not a notable enough franchise. This should be discussed at the article talk page from the start anyway, not here. Indagate (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I even though I disagree with it not being notable enough I can respect it, thank you for your response Franchisegeek (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- There are TV franchises which are notable enough as a franchise for their own article. Paradise is not a notable enough franchise. This should be discussed at the article talk page from the start anyway, not here. Indagate (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok I can respect that, however I have seen other articles listing whole franchises as well as the individual TV shows Franchisegeek (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- That article is for the series Death in Paradise, not a franchise article. The characters for that series are already listed, and characters for the other series are listed in their own articles where they belong. Indagate (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and I disagree with it, as the information is relevant as they are all part of an interconnected TV franchise starting with the main show Death in Paradise, so I added that information table so that people could look and see if characters have crossed over etc without having to be a fan of all three shows as I now know so me people may not to back and watch 13+ series of Death in Paradise to know about a character Franchisegeek (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Reception transclusion
[edit]As I explained, and since since disagreement has become evident, this transcluded format of reception tables has been reverted and contested before, and as far as I know, there has never been a clear consensus formed to use it - unless you can link me to one? -- Alex_21 TALK 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's no consensus to not use it either (as far as I'm aware anyway). Used on other articles without objection. Was added 31 December 2022 (diff) so over 1.5 years since. That article didn't have this table at all before added like this. The status quo that was in place for over 1.5 years should stay until consensus otherwise, per WP:BRD. Can't just remove anything that far back with reason of no consensus just because it's not been discussed etc. Indagate (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- One and a half years doesn't mean a solid consensus at all. The original edit was its inclusion, which has been disputed, and there is a far wider usage of regular tables than jargoned transcluded tables. There's a difference between transcluding a few statistics, and transcluding an episode table with over 100 cells of unique information - if this was the basis for transcluding, we could transclude mass swaths of information between parent and season articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The original edit of its inclusion has got implied consensus as not been disputed for 1.5 years, so should get consensus to change that original edit per WP:BRD, not other way round. Wider usage of untranscluded tables because there's no need for most usages, but lack of prior usage isn't a reason to not do something when it doesn't go against consensus. 7,318 of bytes over 18 rows as example from that article is more than a "few statistics". There aren't other complete tables shared between articles so don't see them as viable for translcuding, so there's not "mass swaths of information" that could be transcluded, WP:TMPG says can't use templates for article text, principle can apply to translcuding but tables aren't article text. Indagate (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- One and a half years doesn't mean a solid consensus at all. The original edit was its inclusion, which has been disputed, and there is a far wider usage of regular tables than jargoned transcluded tables. There's a difference between transcluding a few statistics, and transcluding an episode table with over 100 cells of unique information - if this was the basis for transcluding, we could transclude mass swaths of information between parent and season articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)