User talk:MJL/sandbox5

Purpose?

Hate to be a party pooper, but do we really need a sandbox page for this? ImmortalWizard, you do realise you pinged MelanieN in this edit, so she's seeing all this anyway? Adam9007 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, give him a break, Adam. He is doing exactly what his new mentor told him to do. Yes, he did need to work this out in a sandbox; just look at the history to see him working on it. He knows, and I know, that he sometimes has trouble communicating. (And look again: the ping didn't work because he didn't sign the note. He was told not to so he didn't.) I am just glad to see he is starting to take advice. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should have added 0;-D or j/k to the above. I forgot that you sometimes take things too literally and you might have thought I was scolding you. Nope; just teasing/joking with you. -- MelanieN (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: And look again: the ping didn't work because he didn't sign the note Damn, how on Earth did I miss that? I'm an idiot :$. Adam9007 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, per Wikipedia:Notifications#signed there was no ping since he did not sign it. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You ain't an idiot lol. I just was rather careful with my advice. If he did it in the sandbox, I could review exactly what he sent before saying it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I know; I somehow failed to notice that the draft was unsigned! What I actually did was alert MelanieN before you'd reviewed and he'd sent it. Whoops!

. Adam9007 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace is primarily for drafting (primarily-primarily article content, but it's also entirely appropriate to use it for drafting proposals). It's weird that someone would criticize such an effort (in general). There have been some cases where individual have tried to use userspace drafts to only draft something with hand-picked people, which runs afoul of WP:EDITING and WP:OWN policies. If you want to do that, do it off-site via e-mail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not wrong, but won't pass

That's my prediction. The community is pretty much outright hostile to addition of new guidelines, and we all know by now that every other point in this is at least somewhat controversial among the editorial community. I think it would be far more productive to extract the truly key points of this and propose their addition, one at a time and gradually, to MOS:GENDERID. It's always an order of magnitude easier to adjust an extant WP:P&G page than to add one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Honestly, the main MOS page is way to big and needs to be split. I know people hate having so many rules, but it's lowkey ridiculous to let only like two paragraphs to define how we talk about gender. There have been so many unnecessary flame wars about this which practically always come to the same (or similar) conclusions. Getting this passed would be controversial, but it needs to happen if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure you feel that way, since you're drafting it. :-) I think it really would be more viable to make GENDERID longer (and perhaps move it to MOS:BIO, where the length issue will be less acute). Much of the text in this draft could be compressed, and the WP:CREEP issue is what will likely doom this as a guideline proposal. But, who knows? I could be making a wager Ill lose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]