User talk:JMF

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

Infobox demographic statistics[edit]

Hi. Thought I'd offer further points for your consideration here rather than monopolising the template talk discussion. If I understand correctly, your view is that no demographic statistics should be included in infoboxes because of undue prominence, so I take it you would favour their removal from Template:Infobox UK place too. That's a big change to longstanding inclusion of demographic statistics in the infoboxes be they ethnicity or otherwise. The difference between Template:Infobox English county and UK place template is that UK Place doesn't specify a particular statistic field and it is left to editors of a particular article to decide what's included. Template counties on the other hand specifies ethnicity as the sole field, wrongly I would say. So what to do? My preference is for the following changes to the county template. a) remove ethnicity b) add two optional undefined statistical fields under both the non-metropolitan county and unitary authority sections as with UK place infobox c) let editors seek consensus on individual counties for optional statistical fields. As things stand this would remove all the ethnicity figures, but give an option to include up to two fields, which may make it easier to achieve consensus. We shouldn't assume negative connotations for ethnicity's prominence. Census ethnicity data can be utilised as a positive indication of welcomed diversity. My concern is not about the inclusion of a specific demographic but that the figures for those shown are correctly based on the latest census. Many at present are not and even worse have no source alongside. For these I agree with what you did with Beds and Bucks, i.e. blanking them, though I saw no obligation to undertake up-to-date calculations given the figures are not published for those entities and was somewhat surprised you undertook this. Rupples (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: Thank you. First, I assume you realised that population is a given, that I was talking about the other metrics.
Yes, my main bugbear is that ethnicity is effectively mandatory. In UK PLACE articles, the facility is there for local consensus, which I think can probably work at such a very local level. I'm less sure that it work at county level but its not a show stopper and I won't argue about it lest it distract from my major point. So yes, I agree with your ABC: can you try to get consensus around them?
On the Beds and Bucks infoboxes, I felt I had a duty to hold to the status quo first and have the debate from there because it is a general problem. But I very nearly didn't. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll see what I can do. It probably requires an invitation to the discussion placed on each county's talk page and as Keith D suggests on related wikiprojects, plus a slightly differently worded explanation and rationale. The one task I'm reticent to do is the actual change to the template, if agreed, as it affects many articles and I'm not confident of getting it right. Rupples (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conventionally, the notice goes on the template talk page and associated project pages. I've been an editor for a very long time and never yet seen a notice in talk pages of articles that invoke that template. I've notified wpukgeo and wpengland. Is there another one with even a marginal interest?
As for making the actual change, once the principle has consensus, getting help to make it happen is not too difficult. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting dont you think 71.208.58.96 (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've placed a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Berkshire#Proposed county infobox template change. You may want to take a look. May have to amend the wording for other county projects, but wanted to get your general OK/advice. Hopefully, we'll get more input and a wider consensus to the proposed change. I think notifying the county projects is what Keith is recommending. Rupples (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok. The Bucks one has been dormant for so long that I had forgotten about the county WikiProjects. Yes, we will have to replicate your notice to the others, dormant or not. I will do some this pm. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMF. For some reason, I didn't get a notification for your comment that mentions "lizardmen overlords and their human slaves"; I don't understand the comment, but no need to elaborate. I feel I've contributed more than enough to the Template Talk discussion already and don't propose to make any further points, other than respond if directly addressed. A long back and forth may deter other editors from contributing and I'd like to hear fresh voices. The number of responses so far is disappointing, but it's early days. I wonder if many active editors have the wikiprojects on watchlists? One of the reasons for the additional optional statistical infobox fields is that if we offered them it would help deflate any blowback from editors or readers after the ethnicity stats disappear. Of course, fears of a blowback may turn out to be unfounded. I don't immediately foresee much use being made of the optional fields; they wouldn't show in the article infoboxes and would be undefined in the template, unlike maybe a tendency to add data for defined fields from a sense of obligation to fill empty boxes — might be wrong though. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) amended Rupples (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: Yes, let's let it run for a bit. I suspect we'll end up with needing to do an RFC proposing (a) no change (b) two open-ended options (c) remove it.
I am reminded of the {{infobox UK place}} v {{infobox settlement}} debate. One obvious difference is that UK place does not have a race or ethnicity option (but Settlement does).
I am certain that your surmise is correct: evident or not, there will be at least one editor who feels compelled to find them and "complete" the infobox. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't be changing the template based on the amount of contributions to the discussion so far, but given your "length of service" and experience on here, you can doubtless judge this better than I. One thing I'm minded to do as a test case is to remove at least one county's misleading or out of date stats, not replace and open a discussion on the county talk page with explanation and a link to the Template discussion. It may help gauge what interest there is and if reverted, how strong. What do you think? Rupples (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said in the discussion: the infobox is a wp:LEAD in tabular form and should have the same economy of content. Every county article has the population in the lead: none breaks it down further. It is just clutter.
In my experience, it appears that one of three things will happen: (a) the discussion just peters out and nothing changes (b) there is an immediate and clear consensus for change (c) a slow start, more editors pitch in, various compromise options get thrown in the mix and eventually it goes to full RFC. I think we are at version c, so let it simmer for a few more days. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits[edit]

I posted about the issue you raised on WP:RFPPI over here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024[edit]

What does “Unable to fetch Parsoid HTML” mean?[edit]

I got it whilst editing 90.241.131.86 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no idea, I've never seen it. Ask at the Wikipedia: Teahouse. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poots' v Poots's[edit]

Hiya. While I don't understand the comment about Potatoes (as, other than your own, no edit recently placed an apostrophe between the "t" and "s"), I would simply note that (following your most recent edit) this sentence is now one of the few places in the article/sources/etc where Poots's is used. Elsewhere in the body we have "Poots' supporters", "Poots' instruction", etc. And in the sources we find "Poots' suspension" (BBC), "Poots' decision" (Belfast Newsletter), ""Poots' comments misplaced, sexist and outdated" (Irish News). While I'm not interested in warring about it, I would note that (a) what we have now is at least inconsistent (within the body text and with the sources) and (b) your initial revert of MongogramForCandy's edit actually reintroduced (rather than solved) a "Potato's" problem. Restoring "One of Edwin Poot's sons". An accident undoubtedly. But be careful tossing stones from inside a glasshouse eh? :) Guliolopez (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: see Greengrocer's apostrophe. (tbf, "Potato's" is probably not a good example, since it is legit'te to use an apostrophe to signify abbreviation by omission of letters). I won't [sic] pursue it. Language changes. (I've been reading a lot of C17 writing recently while working on Robert Hooke, so I guess I've become hypersensitised to spelling that would make Nigel Molesworth blush.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024[edit]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024[edit]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Plural in "Foot (unit)".The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Robert Hooke[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Hooke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Robert Hooke[edit]

The article Robert Hooke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Hooke for comments about the article, and Talk:Robert Hooke/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tittles[edit]

Not a very important question, but the key problem here are the words "in English". We are both aware that the classification as "diacritic" is language-sensitive. Tittles are not regarded as diacritics in the English alphabet, since they don't alter the base form, but they are very much diacritics in the Turkish alphabet thanks to the opposition between I and İ.

Anyway this should'nt alter the validity of my edit. The sentence in question basically says: "Of all the diacritics in the world, these ones are sometimes used in English". What you did is narrowing down the broad category "diacritics" (which globally speaking very much includes tittles) preemptively to how it's understood in a specific language alphabet, which doesn't make sense in the context, because the entire article is dedicated to the specifities of that particular language.

I also include Remsense (talk · contribs), since they reverted me [1]. Cheers, Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the key problem here are the words "in English". We are both aware that the classification as "diacritic" is language-sensitive. Tittles are not regarded as diacritics in the English alphabet, since they don't alter the base form, but they are very much diacritics in the Turkish alphabet thanks to the opposition between I and İ.

We agree so far.

What you did is narrowing down the broad category "diacritics" (which globally speaking very much includes tittles) preemptively to how it's understood in a specific language alphabet, which doesn't make sense in the context, because the entire article is dedicated to the specifities of that particular language.

And now I don't understand! We agree his article is particular to English words, and that includes particular conventions—that would probably never include tittles being diacritics simply because our ingrained notion of the letter ⟨I⟩ is too particular (that's my guess, anyway). If we have a Turkish loanword in English, we may import a ⟨Ü⟩, but I doubt we would import the ⟨İ⟩. It's like saying

What you did is narrowing down the broad category "rhotics" (which globally speaking very much includes alveolar trills)

unless I'm missing something. Remsense 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's not an analogous example. We need a sentence making use of a very broad category, but using the term in an idiosyncratic form. Consider: "There are 2 football stadiums in Los Angeles", with the intended context-sensitive reading of football as American football, but instead using the broad umbrella term used for a multitude of very different sports. But here ends the analogy. The link football can easily be redirected to the correct article, clearing any possible misunderstanding, while - in our case - unfortunately there is no appropriate link, since diacritic correctly lists tittles as example for diacritics... Anyway, the chances for confusion for our readers are minimal here, I'm aware of that :-) Cheers, Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! This may be solved for the better by specifying the relative nature of writing systems on the Tittle page, methinks. Remsense 16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense and Mai-Sachme: well I'm pleased that you guys have cleared that up while I was otherwise engaged. I'm not sure how you got there but "all's well that ends well". As for an analogy, how about Æ? In English and French, it is a ligature of A and E; in the Nordic languages, it is a distinct letter in its own right. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until you hear about the actual madness I've coincidentally been in trying to decide whether an there should merit an article for—basically, morphology for grammatology? There's work on it, but I have no idea if there's a common name. "Smallest functional written unit" almost doesn't break down as a definition for grapheme if you don't wander too far from the banks of the Rhine, but everyone goes quiet the moment they have to consider what on Earth is meant to be doing. Of course, there's Chinese character classification, but alphabetic grammatology seems to have little interest in bridging the gap, so to speak. Remsense 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024[edit]

The Unicode hyphen[edit]

You objected to the phrase "various types of hyphen including the unambiguous Unicode hyphen at U+2010" claiming that

there is no such thing formally as a "Unicode hyphen", any more than there a "Unicode minus" or indeed a "Unicode plus"; these are commonly used forms of disambiguation so let's be consistent in our usages.

Where is the inconsistency? "Unicode hyphen" is totally unambiguous, unlike your use of the term "formally". "Unicode hyphen" is used in the "name=" parameter of the infobox of the Hyphen article as well as in the lead of that article. Can you suggest a better term? Not "hyphen", surely, as that's wildly ambiguous. Peter Brown (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it "unicode hyphen" a confection of Wikipedia's making. The name of the glyph is "hyphen", not ifs, no buts, no qualification. Unlike "hyphen-minus" in ASCII. Unlike all the other qualified hyphens and dashes. No, I can't indulge in OR to invent a term nor do I see any need for one: my aim in rewriting that bit of hyphen-minus to that it says

The current Unicode Standard specifies distinct characters for several different dashes, an unambiguous minus sign (sometimes called the Unicode minus) at code point U+2212, an unambigious hyphen (sometimes called the Unicode hyphen) at U+2010, the hyphen-minus at U+002D and a variety of other hyphen symbols for various uses.

is to formally introduce our jargon explicitly and consistently across each of the three cases. Having done so, we can write "unicode hyphen" thereafter with a clear conscience. Otherwise it would be wildly ambiguous of course. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the phrases "Unicode hyphen" and "Unicode minus") are unambiguous as they stand. Googling, I find discussion of the "unicode hyphen" (with a lower-case "u") here but I have to admit that it's rare. Do you think that we should edit the Hyphen article somehow to clarify or eliminate the phrase? I don't see any harm in leaving it alone.
The statement at Plus and minus signs § Minus sign that "'−' redirects here" is ambiguous, unnecessary, and potentially misleading; I suggest that it be deleted. Peter Brown (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I have no objection in principle to the term "unicode hyphen", "unicode minus" or even "unicode plus" [Caps or otherwise].. My concern is that we must introduce them before we use them because the distinction will not be obvious to many readers and the adjective unfamiliar. Yes, they are unambiguous to you and me but we are a minority.
I'll have a look at Hyphen tomorrow: if it uses the phrase "unicode hyphen" without an introduction, then it is frightfully rude, old chap [as Lady Bridgerton probably didn't say].
Yes, per the spirit of WP:NOTAMBIG: what else would it be? Off with its head. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking "Random Article" calls up Carex tsaratananensis. The lead says that it is a is a tussock-forming species of perennial sedge in the family Cyperaceae. Without further research, I don't know what tussocks are or what sedge is, or whether Cyperacae is a family of plants, of animals, of slime molds, or of something else. Surely, though, the article's creator could use these terms without explaining them! The same goes for "unicode". Peter Brown (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are standard English words easily found in a dictionary (though I would wlink sedge): "unicode hyphen" is a confection of our making, so we are obliged to introduce it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment (to JMF); I just "thanked" your removal of some long list of Unicode symbols at tilde, and I was going to make a comment about it. But looking at the discussion above, hmm. Well, actually "Unicode hyphen" is a solecism. There is no such thing as a particular hyphen which is of the Unicode variety - there is only a Unicode encoding (or multiple encodings) of a hyphen. Mustn't ramble. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Library Request... support if you so wish[edit]

Hi,

Sorry for using your talk page, but I couldn't think of a better way to access you. You have shown an interest in British (Country House) Architectural History. I have suggested that Wikipedians gain access to the Country Life Archive on The Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/). Please feel free to support this suggestion (titled "Country Life Archive (Proquest)" on the above page) if you think this is a good idea.

Feel free to @ me here with any questions.

Cheers, EPEAviator (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula von der Leyen[edit]

The relevant quote in the sections source was:

"It is us, Europeans, who decide who comes to Europe and under what circumstances," she said. Her party's manifesto, unveiled on Wednesday, includes a controversial plan to outsource asylum applications to "safe" third countries based on the UK's 'Rwanda model'.

... But at this point I'd accept if that was factually wrong reporting as well. Pinging you just because, well, the assertion is sourced, at least. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackTheSecond: ...
First, the article is about UvdL, not about the EPP. So unless she explicitly endorses that statement, it is irrelevant to her bio.
Second, it doesn't matter what the EPP policy is, since the Commission is not a government.
Not that it matters given that it is irrelevant, but where is it sourced? Even if it is true that the plan to outsource asylum applications, I would be astonished if they would cite the British government's illegal Rwanda proposal as an exemplar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source was this euronews article (that the section is referenced with). Not that you should bother with it overly. It was obviously the author of the article's writing. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here it is, though it is the Euronews reporter that says "based on the UK-devised ‘Rwanda model’", not (at least explicitly) the EPP. She might have said "Italy's Albania model" or "Australia's Nauru model" but that wouldn't get the volume of clicks. 1925 revisited... sigh (sorry, Goodwin's Law violation). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robert Hooke[edit]

On 27 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Hooke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in addition to his work as a scientist, Robert Hooke was an architect who designed the Monument to the Great Fire of London so that it could also have a practical value as a scientific instrument? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Hooke. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Hooke), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

PMC(talk) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]