User talk:Thrakkx/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Short Desc on Redirect Pages

Hi! I'm @IAmChaos:. I noticed that on the page Howard Tracy Hall, you added a shortdescription. While you are allowed to add these to redirect pages, I wanted to remind you that they should be placed UNDER the first line of the redirect like such:

#REDIRECT [[Target]]
{{Short description|Your text here}}

You can see how putting the description above breaks the redirect in this Diff.Please see Wikipedia:Short description#Short descriptions on redirect pages if you have any more questions. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@IAmChaos: hi, this is a bug on mobile. When I click on a redirect link, the mobile page becomes screwy, and the short desc function applies my change to the redirect and not the destination page. I can't tell when I break redirects either—not until someone reaches out or I check my user contributions (the latter of which is so hard to do on mobile). Thrakkx (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

help with Bach

March songs

Thank you for your title help with Bach's No. 1! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WAW

WP:WAW doesn't go where you think it goes. You doubtless meant MOS:WAW. SpinningSpark 16:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World War I memorials and cemeteries in Flanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belgian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts regarding short descriptions and disambiguation links. Keep it up! Volten001 ☎ 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ramadan

I won't pursue but you shouldn't assume top down navigation. Someone following Islamic calendar is likely to approach it from the bottom up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, however it is silly to assume that the reader won't read the very first word and click on the link that brings them to Ramadan, and that instead we need to also give them a hatnote. Thrakkx (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

NOTAMB is quite clear in this case, saying that a hatnote on the (calendar month) article redirecting to the main title should not be present. Thrakkx (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

New message from IAmChaos

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:VPT § Mobile Redirect short descriptions. Hi, You were mentioned by name at a Village Pump discussion Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Short Desc on Redirect Pages

Hi! I'm @IAmChaos:. I noticed that on the page List of leaders of North Korea, you added a shortdescription. While you are allowed to add these to redirect pages, I wanted to remind you that they should be placed UNDER the first line of the redirect like such:

#REDIRECT [[Target]]
{{Short description|Your text here}}

Please see Wikipedia:Short description#Short descriptions on redirect pages if you have any more questions. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Other ships - italics for ship name

Please review your recent changes. The previous copy shows the ship name in italics created by the template other ships, your changes remove the italics. Is there something wrong with your display? Lyndaship (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: no, nothing is wrong with my display. This is how italics work. When you are writing a sentence normally, an italicized word looks like this:

My favorite book is Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.

However, when the entire sentence is in italics, such as hatnote text, the italicized word is now NOT italicized:

My favorite book is Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.

This way, you can still identify the italics. This is a basic editorial standard. Thrakkx (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the idea?

What's the idea systematically removing short descriptions on Trump-related articles? If you have a reason, you should provide it in the edit summaries. If you continue without meaningfully responding here, I will block you. Bishonen | tålk 16:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: 1) Why don't you drop the aggressive act and search for the relevant guideline before threatening to block me for edits that, once you understand the guideline, are not disruptive. Also, 2) using the handy short description editors that the mobile app and the desktop provides means that you cannot add an edit summary. I often pick the convenience over lack of explanation. Thanks. To actually answer your question, none of these article titles need a short description as the ones that were there overly duplicated the article title and the article title itself is descriptive enough that it doesn't need one—SDNONE. Thrakkx (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Italics in hatnote

Hi there. Just curious, what is the purpose of this edit and others like it? I ask because it's actually removing the italics for named works, not adding them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Never worry, came across WP:ITHAT. Seems odd to me, but it is what is it. I'd maybe suggest you make a reference to that in your edit summary, as the one you're currently using doesn't explain why the edit is happening and it seems is confusing some editors. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Thanks for the policy link; I knew it existed but I couldn't find it today. And yes it's a strange convention of our (and others') manual of style to flip the italics around when the entire sentence is italicized, so I understand the confusion. Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, I saw your edit summary note at The Cure. Looks like I wasn't the only one confused about the italics style. All good, and thank you. CAVincent (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your short description edits

You are marking all of your short description edits as "minor" and they really aren't... I was wondering if you have the Shortdesc helper script installed. If you utilize that script it should be taking care of the minor issue... Shearonink (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m using the function on the mobile app, which always marks short description changes as minor. Nothing I can do here. Thrakkx (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

So the shortdesc script doesn't function in the mobile version? Didn't know that. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: the shortdesc at Columbine High School massacre...

I disagree with your revert of my adjustment to that article's shortdesc but I'm not going to edit-war about it. I just think that characterizing the subject as an attempted bombing makes the scope of the incident even more complete (and even more horrific I guess...), the fact that the perpetrators wanted to kill even more people... Oh well, good luck with all the shortdesc edits, there are so many reallllly long ones to trim down. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Guild of Carillonneurs in North America

On 5 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Guild of Carillonneurs in North America, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, despite its name, The Guild of Carillonneurs in North America is not a labor union? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Guild of Carillonneurs in North America. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Guild of Carillonneurs in North America), 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, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dr. Seuss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suess.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Timeline template

I don't think it's a good idea for you to be adding {{for timeline}} to lots of articles when you know full well that it's being discussed for deletion. Better to wait until we know the result of the discussion.  Dr Greg  talk  17:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Greg: I don't see the issue here. If it is redirected (per the proposal), then nothing changes; if it is kept, then I am getting ahead of the work to get this template used more. Are you saying my edits constitute canvassing? Thrakkx (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it is redirected, you will have achieved nothing and just wasted your own time.  Dr Greg  talk  18:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Greg: there's no need to worry about what I do with my spare time, thanks. Thrakkx (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Revert of Find a Grave external link on Isabel Darlington page

I noticed your revert of my addition of Find a Grave external link on Isabel Darlington. You added the link to WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL guidance. In that guidance it states "As an external link: Nota bene Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images of a grave." This is the reason that I added it since it has an image of her grave. Do you agree that it is OK to add back in? Thanks! Dwkaminski (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually going to rope in Nikkimaria (who is much more familiar with this policy than I am) into this for an opinion. I believe Find a Grave links are limited to cases where images of the grave are sought out and notable. Darlington's grave is certainly not notable. Thrakkx (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily required to be notable in Wikipedia terms, but it does have to be potentially valuable to a reader - I would be inclined to agree with Thrakkx's removal in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Artist discography short description

Hi Thrakkx, I noticed that you've been changing the s/d of discography articles, removing what was previously there and leaving it blank. Could you please provide an explanation? Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, see WP:SDNONE. All of these articles that had the description "Artist discography" (less than 300) clearly had titles that were sufficiently detailed, and so shouldn't need a short description. "Artist discography" is also a near complete duplication of the title because 1) all of the titles had "discography" in them and 2) it can be surmised that only artists (or artist groups) have discographies. Therefore, it's clear that this description is not necessary at best, and a haphazard addition to an article at worst. Hope that helps. You can chat with the people over at WT:SHORTDESC about why articles of this naming structure typically shouldn't have short descriptions. Thrakkx (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, thanks for explaining. I've been adding these short descriptions, mainly to differentiate between bands and individual artists. Do you think that's an important enough distinction to add to the s/d? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't think so. The titles "<Artist/band> discography" are quite self-evident on their own. And I doubt the average reader is searching through discography articles without first knowing the artists' or bands' pages they want to find. To me, any short description will either excessively duplicate content from the title or be much too long, e.g. "Discography of the American singer Katy Perry" for "Katy Perry discography". The best description I've seen so far is "Albums released by Katy Perry"; however it still isn't saying anything that "Katy Perry discography" already says. Thrakkx (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:Bell ringing societies in England

Hello, Thrakkx,

Please do not empty out a category, "out of process", so that it will be tagged for deletion as an empty category, CSD C1. If you believe there is no longer a good use for a category or it should be merged or renamed, please make a proposal for action to be taken at Categories for Discussion. Having a deletion discussion allows other editors to weigh in on the decision and they might decide that your deletion, rename or merger proposal could be expanded to other categories as well.

Thank you for doing this in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

July songs

July songs

Thank you for the list of carillons, excellent! - I heard a great concert by Voces8, pictured. - I have a FAC open, in case of interest. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Checked it out for basic tweaks. Thrakkx (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! - more July songs, from Swiss Alps --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for List of carillons in Belgium

On 28 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of carillons in Belgium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are nearly 100 carillons in Belgium, two of which are in the same building? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of carillons in Belgium. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of carillons in Belgium), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,712 views (642.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for List of carillons of the British Isles

On 5 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of carillons of the British Isles, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the carillons of the British Isles were primarily constructed in the interwar period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of carillons of the British Isles. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of carillons of the British Isles), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,915 views (538.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

August songs

Thank you, both excellent! I have a Bach cantata FAC open, would you be interested? The coordinator wants to see action.

... and then I forgot to sign, and by now I see enough eyes on it - new pics and thoughts on 13 August --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nigerian election

Hey, thanks a ton for the election edits. Sorry about making you have to do all that, I didn't know WP:RELATED barred it; thanks! Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Watercheetah99: No worries! Hatnotes are an easy way to connect related articles together, so it happens a lot. If you want the main Nigerian election page to be connected to each individual one, I think the next easiest method would be to try finding a place to link to it in the infoboxes. Thrakkx (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Just going to note that your edits, at least regarding the United States, are against a long-standing practice of using these hatnotes (which yes, goes against WP:RELATED, though that is only a guideline. This has come up for discussion before, though I can't recall where. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elli: I can link you to discussions where a “long-standing practice” that flies in the face of a guideline has been abolished on the basis that it violates said guideline. For example, WikiProject Basketball was asked to stop listing nationalities as WP:INFONAT dictates not to. Thrakkx (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with this, I just wanted to let you know before you proceed further. I'd suggest getting input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums now to avoid potential drama/conflicts later... but it's up to you, I don't care too strongly about this. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

SD

Yes – SDs should not duplicate info in the article title. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Thrakkx. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/List of politicians killed in the American Civil War.
Message added 01:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

New message from Orrscott

In regards to List of carillons of the British Isles, I believe the range diagram you have produced for Kilmarnock is incorrect, since the instrument is two-octaves full chromatic but still begins with a C bourdon. Could you update this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrscott (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Orrscott: I think I'm quite confused with what the sources are saying. CSBI/Dove both say that the transposition is up 7 semitones from G, which would put the bourdon at D? Shouldn't a C bourdon mean a 5 semitone transposition? Thrakkx (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello (and apologies if I'm not using this platform correctly, I'm currently developing my understanding of the Wiki-editing world. I believe the CSBI has mis-reported the range of the keyboard which has resulted in this. It will be amended on our website.

The keyboard has C as it's lowest note (progressing C-D-E-chromatic for the remaining thirty bells), thus giving it a 2.5 octave range up to G. 80.47.42.64 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the bourdon is tuned to the G above the C on which it is connected on the keyboard, which aligns with a transposition up 7 semitones. Towerbells.org agrees (http://www.towerbells.org/data/UKSKLMSM.HTM). Orrscott (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right, fixed it. Be sure the CSBI fixes any inaccuracies with this carillon's data, as we cite them and we have to be true to what we cite. Thrakkx (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

New message Form Jonarnold1985

I noticed that you deleted the years on the awards in the award section of the infobox on Wilhelm Röntgen. Those edits stood for over 7 years and was wondering your justification for doing so. Thanks

Greetings, good wording practice regarding WP:REALTIME

Hi I noticed your edit on Chime included the word "recently", since this word doesn't specific time, the statement could get out of date easily as advised on WP:REALTIME. A better way to write this is to specific time in the statement, eg. a 2019 report shows there are over 1,300 existing chimes. Happy editing : ) Da Vynci (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Style Guides on "Indigenous" - capitalized when referring to ethnicity/citizenship

See my edit summary, and this link to the style guides. We haven't gotten to all the pages yet, but these are the guides we've been using for the last year or more at the Indigenous Wikiproject and with general consensus on Wikipedia at large. If you'll check the various style guides on here, it's been slowly taking effect. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: There is no mention of capitalizing “indigenous” at MOS:RACECAPS, the Wikipedia-at-large consensus page on this topic, and it’s been established that local consensus is not to supersede community-wide consensus... Thrakkx (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We should probably do some updating, then. Indigenous identity is not racial. It's based in citizenship, community, culture and kinship. There are a few pages on here that address it, and capitalize "Indigenous" as a given, such as at WP:TRIBE. But as many mistakenly think of it as racial, we should address it there, as well. FWIW, MOS:RACECAPS indicates that "Native American" is capitalized, and in this case "Indigenous" (as in "Indigenous American") is a synonym; the reasons for capitalization are the same. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Initiative 77 and Initiative 82

Hi. I redirected Initiative 77 and Initiative 82 and unmerged the two other articles for now. I'm not sure I understand why we'd want to combine the articles, but if we do, it probably makes more sense to do so under a Tipped minimum wage in the District of Columbia-type article. It's fairly common and in general a much cleaner and clearer separation to keep the articles separate. We do this elsewhere, for example: California Proposition 1. We also need to be careful about leaving a reasonable attribution trail. Your new article basically wiped all the existing edits from the page history, which isn't great. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: these initiatives are not like the California Proposition 1s because they are exactly identical ballot measures – eliminating the tipped minimum wage over five years. If we imagine a hypothetical reality in which these articles are separate and rated as Featured Articles, there would be significant overlap between the two of them. They would have the exact same background, the exact same arguments for and against, etc. The only difference is that 82 was created because 77 was overturned. It's clear that these articles are two parts of a larger story, so I would say they should be merged again. Also, I hope you noticed the significant improvement in flow, sourcing, etc., because the current versions are lacking in that department. Thrakkx (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the history. ;-) We could potentially move Initiative 77 to Tipped minimum wage in the District of Columbia and redirect Initiative 82 there. If two articles share common background, we typically just leave a pointer from each to a broader article that discusses the issue. Pointers are a fine way to avoid duplication. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: well, I had to double check because you did originally create Initiative 77 but then said you don't understand why the two articles should be merged. I think we should move the contents from Initiative 77 and Initiative 82 to the article title you suggested, redirect the two individual articles there, and add Copied notices on Initiative 77 and Initiative 82 to address the attribution. Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Having articles about individual initiatives is common and standard. Having articles about topics is common and standard. Combining them is strange. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: "Strange" is not a policy-based, fact-based argument, and making arguments based on other article conventions is a long-debunked talking point. Besides, the current contents of Initiative 77 will not make sense under the new title without significant reworking, whereas the content I produced this morning will fare much better and require less work. It literally has section headings titled "Initiative 77" and "Initiative 82". I don't see what your persistent issue here is. Thrakkx (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Found this as I was following 77. There's enough history for each article to merit its own entry, especially given the extraordinary efforts to overturn 77. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. It's perfectly fine and even encouraged to be bold; we find ourselves in a fairly classic bold, revert, discuss cycle. As I said, I think a broader article on the subject might make sense, though even then I'd probably still keep separate articles on the initiatives and simply combine the detailed shared history into a single topic article such as Tipped minimum wage in the District of Columbia.

I don't know of any reliable sources that are framing the two initiatives as a pair, which is what I'm objecting to. If there are such sources, I'd be happy to take a look and reconsider my position. There are articles and sources about Initiative 77 and there are separate articles and sources about Initiative 82. Of course we should cross-reference the two articles via "see also" sections and similar, which we're doing, as the two articles are certainly related concepts. But I don't believe the two concepts are related in the same way as, for example, a joint biography such as Lyle and Erik Menendez. This is my editorial opinion, but if you feel strongly, you're welcome to start a larger discussion on a talk page. I would caution that combining the articles could be considered a form of synthesis that as a tertiary source we try to discourage. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Article moves

Hi, I see you've made an awful lot of moves of articles with "Washington" in their names. Can you point to any WP:RM for these or a consensus that the longstanding names had to be changed? Just because the main Washington (state) article has a parenthetical does not mean every other article needs that. Reywas92^Talk 15:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Reywas92: see History of, Music of, Government of, City government in, Law of, Legislative districts, Cannabis in, List of federal lands in, List of newspapers in, Economy of, List of people from, Vehicle registration plates of, Same-sex marriage in, Capital punishment in, List of earthquakes in, Wind power in, Scouting in, United States presidential elections in (and all of its year-specific articles), COVID-19 pandemic in, Outline of, and Index of Washington (state)-related articles (whose parentheticals I did not add), as well as basically every single category about the state of Washington.

Nearly all of these articles have a Washington, D.C., equivalent and so disambiguation is clearly needed for the ones I changed myself. I think it's clear that every other article needs it too. Thrakkx (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any disambiguation is needed between "X of Washington" and "X of Washington, D.C.", and certainly not when Washington DC doesn't have an equivalent article. Obviously "Washington" needed disambiguation with all the other things with that name, but I don't think the parenthetical has to extend to all subarticles. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Parenthetical_disambiguation_for_all_topic_articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Index of Washington, D.C.–related articles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Committee on the District of Columbia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Long comment request

Thank you for creating set index articles for Washington state and Washington DC related topics. If you can, please add {{subst:long comment}} to the end of these articles? It seems all of these creations are ending up in Special:ShortPages, and there is sufficient content in all of them that it doesn't need to be monitored on the special page. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry. I am aware of the long comment, but I've created set index articles with them in the past and had the long comments removed by other editors. Now I know where to check whether they're needed. Thanks! Thrakkx (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Pleas stop removing compact TOC template

Not everyone is using Vector 2022; the ability to set an alternate skin exists. For those readers using Vector 2022, the template has no effect. But for those using other skins, the removal has a detrimental effect. Please revert all edits removing the template. oknazevad (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually no, there is a detrimental effect for Vector 2022 users. When a custom TOC template is used, the floating template on the sidebar disappears. Try it for yourself on a private/incognito window. Thrakkx (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still don't think that's detrimental. The compact TOC template exists to reduce wasted space when the TOC labels are just letters, which is an issue in either version. Especially since the TOC changes appear to be one of the most pushed-back against aspects of the new design, being it buries subheadings.

More importantly, I don't think unilaterally removing the template without discussion when the roll out has been so contentious in the first place and the claim that all readers are using the new skin is plainly incorrect is a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Short description"

Not sure what you are up to here, and the lack of an edit summary makes it hard to tell. Could you explain? (Please ping me when responding, I don't currently maintain an en-wiki watchlist.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: See WP:SDNONE. We can’t add a summary when editing the short description (using the quick editing tool) on the mobile app. Thrakkx (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

DC Initiatives

Letting you know that I've finally been able to acquire the 1980 election returns from the DC Board of Elections and have added those to the article. I started going back and forth w/them and the DC archives back in October when I first expanded the article and they've been very slow to respond, but hopefully they'll send me the 1982 and 1987 returns soon and I can get those uploaded to IA and then added to the article so that it'll be complete. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Thrakkx (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. vs. District of Columbia in highway titles

The naming conventions of highway articles has been a very contentious topic in the past., ending up at ArbCom. While opinions have cooled a lot over the last 17–18 years, there are still some very good reasons why the topic should be discussed before changing things. Specifically, we would have the incongruity of I-395's title spanning from a state to a city instead of from a state to the state-equivalent, which is the district. I'd also note that the agency involved is named District DOT, not Washington DOT.

Anyway, if you would like to propose a change, the forum for that would be WT:USSH. Imzadi 1979 → 04:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up about MOS:GEOCOMMA

Hey! I wanted to let you know that I reverted your page move of 2015 Rochelle–Fairdale, Illinois tornado, where you added a comma between Illinois and tornado. For titles like that, a comma is not needed since Illinois is a state and tornado is the event the article is describing. If I am 100% wrong on that, please correct it and then it would be wise to alert WikiProject Weather, since none of the articles have a comma between the geographic location and “tornado” in the title (i.e. 2007 Elie, Manitoba tornado, 1953 Vicksburg, Mississippi tornado, ect…). Have a good day and thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: GEOCOMMA does not specify any exemptions for article titles, so I do believe you are wrong about this. In all of these tornado articles you mention, the state is still a parenthetical and must be separated from the rest of the phrase by commas. It's likely that none of these have a comma in the first place because I'm the first to point out that GEOCOMMA applies (and admittedly its not that big of a deal, but I still think the effort should be put forth to make these compliant). Thrakkx (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Saint John, NB and St. John's, Newfoundland

You removed the tag that Saint John and St. John's was ambiguous, but it is.

I have personally heard many people get them confused.

People fly to the wrong one, and get them confused all the time. Many people do not know that there are two Saint John's in the maritimes. They may not know that New Brunswick and Newfoundland are separate provinces.

https:// www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4229619 Mechachleopteryx (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding subsection to Carillon

Hi! It was my great pleasure to come across your hard FA work on carillon! It's not an instrument I know anything about, but I have gathered that the clock-and-playing-drum mechanized version is an alternative to the standard key-based instrument that is played by a carillonist. Is this correct? I ask because I am working on Jean Sibelius's list of compositions page, wherein I mention that he wrote a chorale for Kallio Church in Helsinki. According to this video, the four-bell carillon appears to use a clock and playing drum and would thus be mechanized. Is this, too, correct? Anyway, I would like to be able to link to your outstanding work, but needed a subsection to this version of the instrument: [[Carillon#Mechanization with clock and playing drum]]. Hope you don't mind (and, of course, with your expertise, do feel free to change the subsection title's wording)! ~ Silence of Järvenpää 23:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silence of Järvenpää: I would say it's not correct that a mechanized carillon is an alternative "version" or "type" of a carillon. In Europe, many carillons that are played by humans also have a mechanized drum. The drum's main purpose is to play the time, while the human plays the music. In North America, they have computerized "drums". There are "carillons" that only have a mechanized drum, but nowadays we wouldn't call that a carillon like people would have in the past. Thrakkx (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply

I'm a bit confused also. On Stockton, California you cite Template:Infobox settlement which references WP:USCITIES which has City, State as the standard except for a few major, recognizable cities. Also if name is left blank, Template:Infobox settlement puts City, State as it uses the article title. I would appreciate your response on the deletion of State. Thanks, Fettlemap (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please get consensus for your changes

Please understand that your edits appear to be in conflict with consensus on US city articles and that these changes -- at best -- accomplish nothing. Please see the comments above as well. Please stop and obtain consensus before making further such changes. 00:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Alansohn (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Abilene, Kansas

Issues with your edit of Abilene, Kansas article:

1) "Short description" template should not be removed. You didn't provide any reason for removal.

2) "Kansas" shouldn't be removed from "name" field. Current consensus is to keep the state name in this field.

3) "County seat" shouldn't be removed from "settlement_type" field. I don't know of any rule that says it can't be in this field.

4) "[[Mayor–council government|Mayor–Council]]" was correct, per Mayor–council government.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

After I posted the above comment, you didn't respond, instead you continued to make numerous similar edits, per your edit history. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Abilene, Kansas. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And again at Kansas City, Missouri, pointless deletion with no edit summary. You're being reported for blocking. — Smuckola(talk) 20:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Final warning

You've got multiple requests to stop making certain edits and start discussing and getting a consensus on how to move forward. Final warning. If you dont stop, your account will be temporarily blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Doing whatever you want and ignoring others is not an option. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

listen to multicolor by son mieux and listen to rollar coaster by danny vera 86.95.127.70 (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Marathon

Apologies. I reverted your edit to Marathon without leaving an Edit summary. 26 miles 385 yards was officially the standard distance for a marathon in non-metricated countries for a big chunk of my younger life. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, but there's a reason 26.2 redirects to Marathon. It's a well-known number, and it is unusual to pair "26 miles 385 yards" with a decimal metric number instead of 42 km 195 m... Thrakkx (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason. Because the metric system IS a decimal system, it always makes exact sense to write it in decimal form. But 26.2 miles is simply wrong. It is 26 miles 352 yards. The correct distance is 26 miles 385 yards, not an exact decimal fraction of a mile (to one decimal place). In a long lifetime of following athletics, I have never heard of 26.2 being used in relation to the marathon. It may be different where you live, but this encyclopaedia needs to be accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: There is a reason—people who are not you do not measure exact distances using a combination of miles and yards. They use either decimal points, as in the case of 26.2 miles, or they use feet, as in measuring the altitude of airplanes. Google "distance of a marathon in miles." You will find many sources (that aren't dependent on copying Wikipedia) saying that the answer is 26.2 miles. Many of the results are simply articles titled "Why Is A Marathon 26.2 Miles Long?" Your long lifetime of anecdotal experience is not relevant on Wikipedia, sources are. Thrakkx (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Nor, respectfully, is yours. I'm sure you're recounting your experiences accurately, as I am mine. Obviously this varies by place and by time. My simple point is that 26 miles 385 yards is accurate, while 26.2 miles is not, and I did not "invent" the former figure all by myself. It is documented in many places, especially any describing the first use of that distance at the London Olympics in 1908. The metric distance of 42.195 km is, in fact a conversion from 26 miles 385 yards, not 26.2 miles. The "yards" version came first. We need to retain that historical accuracy too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You got your revert, so please remember your edit summary next time so I don't have to argue on my talk page. Thrakkx (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hatnotes

I need your help by getting rid of these hatnotes in Half-Life (series) per WP:NOTAMB, that are usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous.

For example, A reader who is following links within Wikipedia is unlikely to end up at Water (wuxing) if they were looking for other meanings of water, since water does not redirect there. 122.187.109.194 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Thrakkx. This is an checkuser 3X banned LTA and really shouldn't be supported in this. They've been edit warring this against multiple editors for more than a year. Most specifically, in this case, "Half-life (series)" is not unambiguous, because the primary topic deals with a scientific and mathematical model/series. Remember that NOTAMB says "generally not preferable", meaning it's not a hard prescription. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of places in Colorado: A–F for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of places in Colorado: A–F is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Colorado: A–F until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

 Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Thrakkx!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dianne Feinstein without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAVIMAGES

Thank you for removing an image from Template:Cities and towns in Kitzingen (district) per WP:NAVIMAGES, I would also like to remove images from political leader navigational boxes {{Volodymyr Zelenskyy}}, {{Benjamin Netanyahu}}, and {{Premiership of Narendra Modi}} as well. 218.153.133.202 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Key Bridge (Washington, D.C.)

I see you have twice removed the "confused" hatnote for "Key Bridge (Washington, D.C.)" and justified it with WP:NOTAMB. The past few days we have gotten enough edits by people confusing it with the one in Baltimore that the page is protected. Two bridges with the same name within 40 miles of each other is ambiguous. Before removing it again, can you at least discuss it on the talk page? Lorax (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

List of X (in/of) Washington pages

Hi, in early 2023 you converted a number of redirects to the Washington state pages in the List-format into set index pages linking to both the Washington state and Washington, DC, list articles. I noticed one of them and was surprised how many incoming links it still had, since normally people fix links to disambiguation pages fairly quickly. Which is when I realized they were marked as set index and not disambiguation pages. I think that these pages which link to the two options should be disambiguation pages and not set indexes as they disambiguate two set index page.

Georgia state vs Georgia country is a similar case and is handled by disambiguation pages (see List of rivers of Georgia for example), I believe. I think any changes would approximately the set below but I may have missed some at this point.

Do you see any reason why and/or think that I shouldn't convert the existing Washington pages from set index to disambiguation pages? And thanks!

Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skynxnex: I think you're right, I must have misunderstood the difference between disambiguation and set index. Thrakkx (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's uncommon (I spent a decent bit of time making sure I was probably right before I asked). I plan to adjust all of those to disambiguation pages soon. Skynxnex (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elections in Washington

The article Elections in Washington has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Move Elections in Washington (state) here, and put a {{For}} link at the top to redirect people looking for D.C.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I need help for lead section

What should I clarify the lead section and short description for "Flag of the United Kingdom"? 49.150.13.247 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Also as per Wikipedia talk:Short description#"National flag" as short description for flag articles of UN member states. 49.150.13.247 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversions to recent edit on List of people named Liam

Hi Thrakkx. I do believe you have made a mistake in choosing to revert my edits on the page listed above. The edits do not substantively change the page, just standardize this name list page with others, such as Brady (given name), Austin (given name), etc. Additionally, my edits added new Liams that were not listed already, and removed Liams that did not have individual articles. I do not see why this warranted reversion as, again, the content itself did not change. Thanks, Debartolo2917 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Debartolo2917: You completely changed the article. You removed all of the {{annotated link}} templates and replaced them with custom-defined short descriptions, which necessitate tons of manual work. You changed all of the level 2 headings to level 3 headings and added a new level 2 heading People with the surname "Liam" include, though "surname" is incorrect in this case because this article is for first names, not last names. You overrode the default table of contents, which makes it harder to navigate the article when using the default Vector 2022 skin. You removed all of the names under "See also" which were relevant to the article. You moved all of the fictional character Liams to their own section. While you did add missing Liams and remove Liams whose articles were deleted, you sandwiched them inside these massively unproductive and unannounced revisions. So when you said again, the content itself did not change, that was absolutely not true. Please build consensus before completely rewriting an article that other editors have worked hard on, and that includes revisions in the name of standardization. By the way, I'd be interested to see written documentation of this standardized format you claim to be using. Thrakkx (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have posted a proposal to the article's talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: You're not the same person. What's happening? Thrakkx (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course I'm not the same person! Why can't two people take an interest in the same article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Kaunas Carillon' DYK nomination

@Thrakkx: Hello, I noticed that you are passionate about carillon, thus maybe you could help me in this topic? Yesterday I have created a new article Kaunas Carillon and nominated Did you know nominations/Kaunas Carillon related with it. Currently, the DYK nominations list is very crowded and I think it will take a long time until somebody will come to my DYK nomination. So maybe you could review my DYK nomination about the Kaunas Carillon using Template:DYK checklist? Since you are an experienced carillonist and likely a native English speaker, I think it would be a very easy task for you. The article of the Kaunas Carillon possibly requires basic copyediting (not sure as I am not a native English speaker), so if necessary maybe you could perform it as well? I am sure that your assistance would significantly speed-up this DYK nomination process and ensure high quality. Best regards, -- Pofka (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pofka: Hello! This is great news, thank you for writing this article! You did a great service translating all of those Lithuanian-language sources to English. I've copyedited the article and submitted a review on the DYK nomination page. Thrakkx (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)