User talk:Historyday01

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT
Historyday01 is considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

Note: I am considering either full retirement or semi-retirement, per what is stated at WP:RETIRE, on December 31st the way things are going. Perhaps I will regain interest, but I'm feeling pretty dispirited these days.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has created 52 articles on Wikipedia.



Hello! Feel free to post comments, suggestions, and whatnot, and I'll do my best to respond to them in a timely manner. Please do not ever invite me to participate in AfD discussions as you can't trust anyone there to lend a helping hand, and I know this from experience. July 22nd will live as a day of infamy, a day in which my dastardly block ended.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about talk page guidelines

WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS and WP:INTERLEAVE state:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page...Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving or interpolating your own replies to individual points. This causes confusion with who said what and obscures the original editor's intent.

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, which lists examples of appropriately editing others' comments (italics is my emphasis):

Personal talk page cleanup...Removing prohibited material such as libel; legal threats; personal details; content that is illegal under US law; or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies...Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived...Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution

WP:TALK#REPLIED states (italics is my emphasis):

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely. But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes...To add an explanation of your change, you may add a new comment directly below your original or elsewhere in discussion as may be most appropriate; insert a comment in square brackets.

WP:OWNTALK states:

User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving.

WP:BLANKING states:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so.

Current draft pages:

Currently watching:

Current drafts in progress:


Keeping a watch on and updating view counts every so often:

Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel are usually updated pretty frequently so I'm not going to worry about those.

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grace Harriet Spofford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shows with LGBTQ characters that were only confirmed later in the original work

[edit]

Hello! What do you think about characters who weren't (yet) stated or revealed as gay in the adaptation but went through that phase later in the original manga or LN? Skip since the anime hasn't positioned characters this way yet? In some cases this "gay thing" was already in the show, it's just that the adapted chapters at the time didn't confirm it yet. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating tentative entries for them (and put them in a section on the Talk:List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present page) and IF it is confirmed in the anime adaptation, THEN add it into the main page?--Historyday01 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting we keep it until the anime confirms it too? Solaire the knight (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should keep it until the anime confirms it, but still go to the effort to create tentative entries, if that makes sense. I say that because there's already a sourcing problem with entries across the Lists of animated series with LGBT characters, so I don't want to cause any more issues. Historyday01 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. I just noticed that some all-female works have rather platonic anime adaptations, while further LN or manga confirms the relationships of the characters or at least the identity of one of them. But if we think about it, we won’t always be able to say that the author had this in mind back then. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of black animated characters, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barry Mitchell and Avengers Assemble.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Mysticons characters for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Mysticons characters, 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/List of Mysticons characters 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, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeform.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List intersection

[edit]

Hello! The Kanojo mo Kanojo controversy once again reminded me of one thing. Since some characters are obviously worthy or could potentially be on different LGBTQ lists, in controversial cases this leads to the fact that a dispute about a particular character can affect several pages at once, including their show. In this case, the dispute about Saki was actually divided into three parts, which is why I even had to decide to freeze the dispute in other articles, so as not to waste energy on 3 disputes about the same thing at once and in the future decide on them based on the original discussions on the front page talk page. What do you think about this? Is there a way to somehow resolve the issue of intersections to avoid such cases in the future? I haven't looked at the other pages, but remembering our conversation, I wouldn't be surprised if Oscar ends up in the same story. Not to mention that articles about trans and lesbian characters seem to simply duplicate information about such characters from the general list. Or even includes many characters that have already been removed from the main as original research. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you make a good point here. Maybe we can make an informal list (I could refashion one of my sandboxes for it) of characters which are disputed which span different pages? It might be useful. However, it could take time to assemble a list and decide which characters are disputed. Historyday01 (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea, but I naturally do not require you to do this immediately or against your wishes. This is a global issue, so it can be left for later. Just to keep that in mind, as they say. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyday01&oldid=1254456682"