User talk:Mlaffs/Archives/2021/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
"K272ED" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect K272ED. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#K272ED until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tdl1060 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation name changes notice
I renamed the disambiguation articles KWCV and KSCW into the same but with "(disambiguation)" at the end. The reason why is that I think both KWCV and KSCW would be more fitting for KSCW-DT than what is also named them. Since that, I added for other uses in KSCW-DT. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 16:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can see that for KSCW (full-power TV station probably gets dramatically more hits than a low-power radio station). Wouldn't agree for KWCV - the TV station hasn't held that call sign since 2006. I'd leave the disambiguation page at the base name. Mlaffs (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Mlaffs, hope you are doing well since the last we spoke. Can I get your opinion on this AfD? The whole thing just reeks of IDONTLIKEIT, right down to the dePROD-but-wasn't-a-dePROD-thing. Any insight you could give would be greatly appreciated. Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey there – apparently I've completely missed the fact for the past week plus that this message was waiting here for me. Sorry about that...
- I took a look through the article and the AfD. Looks like it's breaking down along the usual lines for these sort of things, which almost always seem to be the low-power stations. I have a hard time imaging this one ever getting much past its current state, which I'd say is probably right on the line between stub and start. Looks like it's an interesting history, but there are limits to how much coverage a low-power station is going to get unless they do a really good job of drumming up interest in local media when they launch.
- Based on that, if there wasn't a logical redirect where this information could be captured, I might feel differently, but in this case, I can completely see just having a section in the college's article about the radio station, with this information included there. I guess I'm just not seeing this one as a hill I'd want to die on, although that might be just as much about the level of energy I have these days as anything else :>).
- That said, by the looks of the AfD, I don't think it'll reach consensus, so it'll probably be closed as a keep. Just my gut feel. Mlaffs (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to KVVU-TV, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Only seeing this now. Talk about excessive... In any event, as to the topic, the longtime use of (PSIP) in that place in an infobox is probably overly excessive (I compare it to a building infobox having "Elevators: 2 (tractor)"), and with ATSC 3.0 (which doesn't have anything called PSIP in it anyway) now a thing for a growing number of stations, it's not accurate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks – when I followed up, I did get pointed to a couple of your talk page posts that provided the context, but I appreciate you dropping by to provide it yourself. Much more helpful than the original notice was. Wonder if it might not be worth adding something to the instructions on the infobox page? I suppose it's possible that the audience of regular TV station editors is small enough that everyone else knows about this already and I'm the only one who didn't get the memo, but I didn't see any discussion about this anywhere. Mlaffs (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- It first came up in February, when I began making some technical improvements to improve consistency around ATSC 3.0: User_talk:Sammi_Brie/Archive_29#Re:_Template:Infobox_television_station. I personally hadn't used it in new articles (on the Mexico side, the virtual channel has an accompanying citation, and Mexico assigns its virtual channels in a method that does not use old analog allotments). Another thing is that some of the editors in this field are used to very crufty infoboxes where I prefer lighter presentation. Worse yet, in some of our Asian/ISDB-T articles (Japan, Philippines), this style was needlessly extended and we got "Virtual: 1 (LCN)", which is awful because "virtual channel" and "logical channel number" are synonyms. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is something I wish had been read more by topic editors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks – when I followed up, I did get pointed to a couple of your talk page posts that provided the context, but I appreciate you dropping by to provide it yourself. Much more helpful than the original notice was. Wonder if it might not be worth adding something to the instructions on the infobox page? I suppose it's possible that the audience of regular TV station editors is small enough that everyone else knows about this already and I'm the only one who didn't get the memo, but I didn't see any discussion about this anywhere. Mlaffs (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:WJPL-LP logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:WJPL-LP logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)