User talk:MapReader

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of fo,rmatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good editing is saying the same thing in fewer words (Ed.)...

Hello! MapReader, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your hard work on the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article. I was thrilled to see the article was promoted to Good status! Another Believer (Talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	AB Award!
	In appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby present you with the AB Award. By promoting one of these stubs, which I like to think of as seeds, you have improved this wonderful collaborative project. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Another Believer (Talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that the warning I put on your talk page was unjustified. Apologies and retractions. Dkendr (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For being understanding. And I have to compliment you as well — you made excellent edit to my shortened version! Always glad to run across another conscientious editor. I hope to see you around Wikipedia more often! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

The paragraph in question was not an "addition" by me. It was previously in the section "Notable prisoners". As part of a major cleanup I moved it to "Survivors" – after using Google to quickly verify that the general discussion re Cameron was not totally fictitious. (My logic being that a section like "Notable prisoners" would usually be about people who were notable for reasons other than their time at Stalag Luft III.)

Anyway, I think a better course of action that deleting the whole par would be the addition of "citation needed" tags? Grant | Talk 09:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've been coming in after my edits on election results and making some edits to names. While on the whole I agree the common name should be used, I believe where a candidate is redlinked their full name should be used, as there is no page to provide that further information as of yet. This will help any editor who does decide to create that page from the redlink. --JMPhillips92 (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you appear to be working through a list of both current and historic constituencies, which I haven't yet found. Since I was just addressing format and not even reviewing your edits, let alone seeking to change them, I had hoped that you wouldn't mind my using your edit history as a handy list. If you do mind, I am happy to find another list, although I am nearly done in any case. Regarding red links, have you looked at the policy within WP:Redyes? The red links are supposed to be to article titles, the one that would be appropriate when article is created down the line. Using the entire full name for a red link would not be compliant. It also risks - as I have found a few times now - creating a red link to someone's full name when the individual already has a WP article more appropriately titled under their Commonname, which is usually how WP articles are titled. Worst case this could lead to having two articles about the same person. Taking Redyes and Commonname together, I do not believe it would be appropriate to run with your suggestion. If there is additional biographical information that needs to be retained, surely the better path is to create a stub page? Season's Greetings! MapReader (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working my way back through the elections, decade by decade, so am currently using List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1874, if that helps. I'll then move on to the 1860s using the 1868 list. I understand that, but would use a piped link to include a common name red link with the full name displayed. However, perhaps the stub page route is better. Thanks very much and season's greetings to you too! --JMPhillips92 (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mapreader, in response to your comment at WT:MOS#An historic, I also use "a hotel" as you do. But I was just curious in what part of the world "hotel" is stressed on the first syllable? I've never heard that before. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pumi dog 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 Legobot, on behalf of Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits at Arrival. The film makes a notable distinction in its narrative between premonition time and the depicted time of events as they transpire. The preamble to the film is the fulfillment of one of her premonitions of the death of her child, which is unknown to the film watching audience as being a premonition until the film develops further. Since Wikipedia does not protect spoilers, this information about the fulfillment of the premonition should be included in some way in the first paragraph of the plot summary as useful to readers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not spoilers. The plot section of a WP article should set out what happens, rather than any individual editor's interpretation, which would be WP:OR. Your "premonition dating back several years" is both a contradiction and an assumption. There is nothing in the introductory sequence that indicates it is a premonition; indeed the actor's voiceover suggests it is a retrospective. And the remaining parts of your edit were unnecessary. What is really needed is a return to the An introductory sequence.. formulation of the article, which had the advantage of avoiding edits that attempt to impose their own interpretation of events, as did yours. MapReader (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:OR in the edit I have placed. You appear to be stating that the film makes no distinction between premonition time and the depicted time of events as they transpire during the larger portion of the film. Her premonition of the death of her child frames the entire film, the very start of the film and the very end of the film, and it would be useful to included this in the first paragraph of the plot summary. There is no WP:OR in this edit. Her premonitions are a part of the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The premonitions are certainly part of the film. But the introductory sequence isn't necessarily one of them; that is simply your assumption. Stick to describing what happens on screen.MapReader (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed as the top editor of this article and it is significant to know that this is not my assumption but a part of the film as made by the director. The death of her child frames the entire film at the very start and at the very end. Her premonition is that she will marry her co-worker, that they will have a child, that their child will die, and that he will leave her. You appear to be protecting this as a spoiler to the film which is against WP:Spoiler policy, which does not recognize the protection of spoilers on Wikipedia. Use your own words to describe the premonition's importance to the event of the death of the child and to the film as a whole in the first paragraph of the plot section if you do not feel my version was accurate. It was the director's choice to edit in the premonition of the death of the child as the first scene of the film and not my assumption. It is the director's choice to present the fulfilled premonition as being the first scene of the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All true, except for the statement that it was a premonition, which is your personal conclusion. The voiceover suggests that it was a retrospective, narrated after all the events of the film had taken place. My view is that the premonitions don't start until later in the film, once she starts working on the alien language. In any event, anything that needs to be debated isn't storyline but OR. MapReader (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that you did adapt the language there just now which is useful. I meant to write 'fulfilled premonition' above but you understood my meaning. Your comment above that 'once she starts working on the alien language' is more strongly stated here than in the plot summary and it would be nice if you could use something like your wording here in the article itself. Its not OR to include this since her study of the alien language appears to be directly related to her starting to experience the premonitions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The key point here is, however, that the film doesn't (in my view) start with a premonition. Hence the problem with your original edit. The problem with your suggestion, however, is that you are not following the storyline, which doesn't 'reveal' that the child sequences mid-film are premonitions until near the end. Certainly WP should not exclude spoilers from the plot, but neither should 'explanations' be inserted earlier into a storyline than they emerge in the actual film. MapReader (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Word this as best you can. Following a storyline with multiple flashbacks is sometimes best done by summarizing them in time sequence when summarizing a 2-hour film in 400 words. Our local library had a copy of the dvd which records the following sequence of scenes in the film with their approximate time stamps. She first appears with her child after having it with a husband in the first 10 minutes of the film. Then flashback to her as a single unmarried professor teaching class when the aliens first arrive while she is still single and without child. At approximately 30 minutes into the film she first meets her future husband. At 60 minutes into the film she experiences her first premonition while starting to learn the alien language. More premonitions lead to world cooperation, and she eventually marries and has the child, and the film comes full circle to the introductory sequence at the start of the film. If you prefer your version of the storyline, then indicating the flashback points would help the plot summary. The current version does not indicate these flashback points in the plot summary. JohnWickTwo (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion to article Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pumi dog you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pumi dog for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagaciousphil -- Sagaciousphil (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you review and edit a lot of geography articles. I've been working on improving Lago di Bientina, but I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and am not exactly confident in my work. It started out as one sentence and I've added a lot over the last few days. If you could take a look and give me some guidance, tips, or pointers, that would be awesome, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ganesha811 (talk · contribs). You have chosen an interesting article, a lake that doesn't exist any more! I know Italy quite well but didn't know anything about it. What you have written looks good, although structured exclusively from a historical viewpoint. I know that malaria was a big problem historically for low lying parts of Italy, and I am sure the wider issue of eliminating it must be covered somewhere on WP; it would be good to cross-link to any such articles, for example History of malaria, . A citation for the early idea of draining in the 1500s would be helpful. A modern map showing the location would be good, if you can find one free of copyright restrictions. A section on the geography would be a useful addition - this could describe the location, and explain why a lake was there (i.e. where the water comes from and why it didn't drain away into a river). It would also be interesting to know what the area covered by the former lake is now used for (i.e. current land use). Otherwise, unless there is anything noteworthy to say about local geology, flora and fauna, or present day human activity, I think you have everything covered. MapReader (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed feedback! I'll take these suggestions in mind and work to improve the article that way. How can I be sure a modern map is free of copyright? It was tough enough finding two good historical ones that were. I definitely wanted to include a geography section but couldn't find enough detailed information on the pre-drainage lake to make it informative or worthwhile. Thanks again and I appreciate the praise! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have done some more great work on this article, Ganesha811 (talk · contribs). Finding a modern map for a lake that doesn't exist any more will of course be difficult; there are however within the Commons maps showing the location of the Province of Pisa within Italy, and of the Commune of Bientina within Pisa, and if these could be combined and added into the infobox (don't ask me how - manipulating image files isn't my speciality), it would help "place" your lake. I am thinking of something like the combined map here showing the location of Ventnor. Or alternatively a map of Tuscany with its principal towns including Lucca and Pisa, so that the reader can 'place' the lake from your description? MapReader (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...for overreaching on the UK Parliament constituencies formatting. I was going to revert myself on the addition of "Sir" after seeing your revert on Warrington, but it looks like you've been taking care of that. Please let me know if there are any of my edits you haven't gotten to. Choess (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was wondering why you suddenly decided to unpick a previous consensus, particularly when we had discussed it before. Assuming that we're only talking about your edits over the past 24 hours I think I have picked up most of them. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there shouldn't have been any in my January edits; I just came back after a long hiatus and forgot the details. I double-checked and it looks like you got them all—thanks for catching my anachronism on Lord Ronald Gower, too. Thanks for being civil; it's little stuff like this that seems to drive people around the bend here. I appreciate the work you've done smoothing out these names of MPs and I don't want to make you waste your time fixing stuff like this last batch. Warm regards, Choess (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ventnor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ventnor for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ykraps -- Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you persist in casting your proposal in a certain light, I had to say my piece. I'm sorry - I believe I gave you every chance. Have a nice day. CapnZapp (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK CapnZapp, you are entitled to your view. I don't assume bad faith, in that I quite accept that editors who originally promoted the current approach didn't do so believing it was synthesis, or maybe didn't even intend things to turn the way that they have. Nevertheless my good faith view is that it is (the stated conclusion not being referenced directly, it's pretty much a textbook case), and in my honest opinion does represent a problem that needs fixing. I don't really see your beef with the proposed wording, which looks both specific and neutral to me. I also don't understand your point about referring to what we did before, which doesn't seem either neutral or really appropriate to an MoS, which should set out clearly what people should be doing? Regarding the talk, you specifically asked me to spell out in what way I thought the current approach deficient, and I gave you a direct answer. Thanks nevertheless for your input. MapReader (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you still don't get that those editors see technical data as reliable sources, and thus believe they are in line with policy, I can only surmise you don't want to see my point! CapnZapp (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp, they are of course reliable sources, but only for the information they actually provide: the fact of an entity's involvement in the series and its own nationality (leaving aside arguments such as whether Sony subsidiaries should all be considered Japanese, which is the sort of blind alley up which the current approach sometimes leads). But the technical data doesn't say "this series is British-American". WP:SYNTHESIS says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated". I contend simply that using the credits and then further sources to establish the nationality of the production companies is clearly multiple sourcing; using this to conclude that a series has the combined nationality of all of its production entities is a conclusion not explicitly stated. Consequently, what ends up in articles often doesn't reflect the RS, it really is that simple. MapReader (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why dear Lord don't you say this to argue for your change? This is what I call a compelling, understandable argument, and I've banged my head bloody to make you see it. Do leave out the shaming bit (the sentence starting with WP:SYNTHESIS) if at all possible, though, since it will win you no votes. CapnZapp (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to revisit the debate, Capn? You'll see that I have moved to wording closer to your own suggestion, for which many thanks. MapReader (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to; I don't see any edits of yours to the MoS talk page recently? Even so, I think more editors need to chime in before I have anything to say (that I haven't said already). Or perhaps everyone agrees with you silently? CapnZapp (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last contribution on the talk page is mine, with a revised wording closer to that you had earlier suggested. I was hoping this would address some of your constructive input? Meanwhile I am also doing my best to attract some attention towards the discussion. If there is a compelling argument against something, we can rely on WP that it will be advanced by someone. Or, as you say, perhaps direct referencing is so uncontroversial as to not attract any comment? MapReader (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might care to know I invited the editor who reverted you at Downton to the discussion: [1]. No response. What this tells me is that it is time to proceed - merely discussing the matter more (at any talk page) won't get us anywhere, since you're not engaging with the people opposing you. Either change the MoS or start a RfC or [a third option I've overlooked] - either way they're forced to engage or if they keep silent you've established a new equilibrium (assuming you're successful) which they can't keep blocking. In short: give up the hope of winning them over peacefully, they're not interested in talking to you. Just my 2 cents CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As the founder of WP has said, one of its drawbacks is that it can attract people who want to progress an agenda, rather than work with others to give readers the clearest and most accurate information. Such is life. I am hoping to get to a form of words that those of us who are willing to participate are happy with, before pressing onward. A revised wording is now on the MoS talk page and, as ever, your input will be valuable. MapReader (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the person's name ends with an S, then they just need an apostrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.140.2 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't correct - Please take a look at Mos:poss. An apostrophe without an added s is only used for the plural possessive. MapReader (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With over 70 nominations and over 20 wins, can we move the accolades from the Wikipedia's main page to List of accolades received by Darkest Hour (film)? I posted this in the talk page of the film, but no one has responded yet. Daerl (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don't mind, but am not really the best person to ask as my contributions to the page have been minor, correcting odd mistakes. I haven't actually seen the film yet. Why not check the stats and ping a couple of the editors who are responsible for most of the content? MapReader (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you contributed to the discussion about a revert done to The Americans (2013 TV series) article, I wanted to inform you that the discussion was transfered here, in case you wanted to keep up with it. Also, note that I restored your reply which Drmargi deleted from her talk page. Thief12 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Plain English is an essay. "Garnered" is not a word with which a high-school student would, or at least should, be unfamiliar. I appreciate the simplicity of "won" (or even "earned"), but this project is not Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia and we can use a more advanced vocabulary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is good reason, of course. If more complicated wording captures some nuance or aspect that putting things plainly would not. But in my view there isn't as far as this article is concerned. Someone won an award; why say "garnered" when there is no reason? MapReader (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with OP. I knew what "garnered" meant by the time I was in around 5th grade, if not earlier. It's very commonly used even in the entertainment press (e.g. "garnered many positive reviews"), which is about all the press the younger generation are reading these days anyway. And "X is just an essay" is invalid reasoning. People do not "cite" essays here as if they are policies; they refer to essays because they contain neatly packaged arguments that we don't want to have to re-type out again and again. If an essay and its reasoning are presented as an argument for or against something, saying "that's just an essay" isn't responsive. Address the content. Otherwise you're just saying "Your position is a position", which we already know; it's not refuting the position, just pointlessly confirming its existence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to apologize for inadvertently muddying the water at WT:MOSTV. There's been a whole lot of "talking past each other" going on, and I'll own my part in that. Happily, the primary active parties, including CapnZapp (despite some testy interaction between us, and I'll own up to my half of that, too), appear to be converging on the same basic set of conclusions. I think the main sticking point is whether it will be productive to just go change the guideline boldly based on what three editors are saying (more like 2.5, because I think it's a poor way to try to get at the desired result even if I agree with the latter), and in the face of stern opposition by another cluster of editors, over at Talk:Downton Abbey. I predict that it would backfire (for reasons dwelt on at WP:CONVENUE), and this is why I've suggested the RfC route. Two WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes editwarring and verging on a WP:POLICYFORK doesn't work. But if a solution is good, from a consensus perspective, then it will gain broad consensus if presented [well!] to the community to examine it. Get a determination of what consensus really is, based on actual policy not disputed and confusing guideline wording, then write the guideline to match, and implement the article-by-article conformation later. I've been at this a really long time (on-site and off – I was a professional policy analyst and issue-based activist all through the '90s) and this approach to policy formation and change appears to be the most effective, by a wide margin. It also often requires patience (sometimes months or even years of it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMcCandlish, that is appreciated; you are an editor I have respected for some time, yet your early contributions to this discussion did seem unusually irritable and ill-considered. My issue was always far from "splitting hairs" - it actually plays directly into your recently expressed but long-held concerns about editing conventions that have developed within the tv wikiproject. Certainly, I have the persistence and patience to see this through - however you look at it, having an article on DA that conflicts with the majority view of the real world is plain wrong (if you do some digging you'll find a tiny handful of editors are responsible). CapnZapp is right that the underlying problem is with the MoS, and I have understood his perspective from the beginning, even if he hasn't always appreciated this. But an RFC on a single article will fail, given the MOS, and won't address the wider issue. Yet my attempt to deal with the MoS first, as the Capn suggested, has so far met with widespread apathy. I don't see an appropriate RFC on the article to pose, right now, and the next step appears to be to boldly edit the MOS, which will at least force the lurking opponents into addressing the concern directly. Unless you have a better suggestion? MapReader (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My approach to this would be, then, to open a "clean" RfC either at WT:MOSTV or at WP:VPPOL, and at least notify VPPOL, WT:MOS, WT:MOSFICTION, WT:WPTV, and whatever else seems relevant (talk page of TV naming conventions page, etc.), plus the WP:NORN noticeboard. With a simple question: Should wording X be changed to Y? Then add your rationale as the first support comment. That should be broad and neutral enough. Use the DA dispute as an example, and maybe include a couple of others. There must be some. If there's not, then it's probably actually a WP:ANI matter! I'd bet money it's not limited to that article. That said, I'm not going to "walk back" the point of my initial commentary. In absence of any sources that discuss the "nationality" of a show (e.g. because it's brand new and there are few sources yet, just enough to establish baseline notability), it can't be forbidden to figure out that something is, e.g., a joint French and British (or whatever) production based on the available sources agreeing it was jointly produced by a French company and a British one. We don't have that for DA; we have source saying its a British show, that's received a boost from an American network (and nonprofit organization) with an interest in it. It's OR to leap from "got a leg up" to "is an American co-production". I'm just not sure how to codify the distinction. The concern I had with your draft was it appeared to require us to zip our lips shut about the production company if we couldn't find a source saying "This is a British production" in pretty much those exact words.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciate the suggestions you made at the Peer Review for the article North Cascades National Park. Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article!--MONGO (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I am glad all your hard work was fruitful. MapReader (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know I've finally been unblocked and to drop by to say thanks for your comments on my talk page. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it! Huggums537 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Grandpallama (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary:

1. Please give me a link to the previous discussion at UKpolitics so I can understand the arguments there, and
2. How can privacy be an issue when this information is statutorily published and will be on the ballot papers seen by thousands of electors?

And also: what source is there for the short forms of the names? Unsourced, it looks like WP:OR. Plenty of people don't use their first given name. If we shorten the names, there should be a source to support each candidate's chosen form of name. Leaving the names full seems neutral and accurate. But I'm happy to read the previous discussion if you can show me where to find it. Thanks. PamD 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPRIVACY is easily accessible and you will see that, for non-notable people, it is a requirement that for their full name to be published here it needs to have been used on multiple widely available sources (simply being on the ballot paper and notice of poll isn’t sufficient). The style guidelines for these pages are at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style; the discussion that agreed this standard format for election tables will be in the archives of UKPOLITICS talk and I will endeavour to find it when I have time. Meanwhile if you look around at other constituency pages you will see that there is a uniform approach with first name - last name used as the Commonname except where there is RS to indicate the person uses another name (which is usually indicated by the “known as” provisions that candidates can confirm when they complete their nomination papers, in any case). Kind regards, MapReader (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explanation. It would be helpful to other editors if you could link to this while removing content which has been included in good faith, as in this edit: "correct format" is a bit cryptic, but a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#Election_candidates would be informative. In terms of privacy, I'm not sure that the official poll list and ballot papers really don't count as "multiple widely-available sources", given that the names will be on official posters all over the constituency as well as online, but won't take time to argue the case further. Thanks. PamD 09:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if a candidate's full name ever appeared on a poster, or indeed online. The returning officer posters are of course local and temporary, whereas WP is global and potentially permanent, so there really isn’t any comparison. Almost every candidate nowadays will have a website and various social media channels, from which it will be easy for anyone to identify how they are regularly named. WP:Commonname naming is a common standard format throughout WP. Best wishes MapReader (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, many reliable sources (BBC News, National Newspapers etc.) just show the forename and the surname. Realistically, not many people care what candidate's middle name(s) are, whether they are on the ballot paper or not. PinkPanda272 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your revert/edit here contained a lot of negative changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=936344153&oldid=936341047&title=Sex_Education_(TV_series)

Not only were there clear typos like 'Meave' and 'freinds', but you changed a correct 'it's' to an incorrect 'its' and 'addiction' to 'addition'. The sentence about the character Rahim was better in CeilingMessenger's edit, and 'excessive masturbation' is much more grammatically sound than 'over masturbation', which at least needs a hyphen. I also don't think it makes sense to use 'of course' in summaries, as you have twice, or to remove most of the commas you removed. 115.70.7.33 (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. The edit in question was a straightforward revert of an edit that, while it did rectify a few small errors as you say, also introduced new mistakes into the article. It was simply easier to correct the article from the position prior to that edit, and if you check my immediately subsequent edits you will see that I did endeavour to rescue those changes that were corrections from the original edit, and re-edit them into the article. Btw if you wish to engage with other editors it would be appreciated if you could work from a proper WP account? Best wishes, MapReader (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, so you did. I didn't look carefully enough, I apologise. The 'addition' typo remains though. I just feel an overly hasty rv may put a new editor off. As for me, I'm not opposed to it, but I'm also not active enough on Wikipedia to bother remembering my old username and password. I've been getting by without an account for years just fine. Regards. 115.70.7.33 (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. The issue with posting discussion as an IP is that you could be anyone, including the editor who was reverted, posting anonymously. It's more open and honest to post talk from an account. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the photos were taken is patently irrelevant. And in any case your issues with the caption is noted within MOS:IRELEV: “ When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals”. It’s not even a stitch job of the two images, it’s a multi-image template utilized to make the point about the divide about their performances. I don’t care about the Bacall image being taken down the multi image should be returned, and tinker with the wording and swap out which pictures of the actors are used if you like, but the image is important to help provide a more condensed and concise illustration about how there was a mixed response to the acting. Rusted AutoParts 06:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a poor image with an inappropriate caption. The caption caught my attention but the image itself isn’t a good one. Have a go at finding better ones. The Bacall image was simply obscure. WP is an encyclopaedia and “flourish” isn’t one of its objectives. Good luck. MapReader (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped out the Cotillard image for a more recent picture of her and reworked the caption. If you still have issues, please feel free to make adjustments yourself. The picture isn’t one stitched together, the images within the template can be swapped out. Rusted AutoParts 06:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it still needs a better image what do you mean? Of Pitt? Of Cotillard? I’m honestly trying to work with you here to find the best option. Rusted AutoParts 06:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you bring the reasons for why you reverted my edits to the articles GA review? Those edits were changes asked be made. Rusted AutoParts 19:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rusted AutoParts. On the first one, it is grammatically incorrect because “it’s” is a truncated “it is” which isn’t correct in your context. The edit added nothing because inserting “the film” is superfluous; it is already obvious that the criticism refers to Interstellar, which is a film, and “and its story”, which would have been the corrected version, tells you no more than that the criticisms were the same as made about the earlier film. Indeed the GA review should have identified that this oblique reference to criticisms that aren’t actually explained in this article (and would take quite some clicking through to find) is substandard editing in the first place (TBF having now looked at the GA it does touch on this. I don’t see why Interstellar needs to be mentioned at all, myself). The second edit is grammatically incorrect because the correct phraseology is “big influence was....X”; “from” isn’t required here and inserting it is an error (indeed the GA reviewer suggested it be removed yet you added it back in). MapReader (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am carrying out research to identify the common names of candidates so that wikipedia can use them instead of the full names. I notice from your recent edit on the Sheffield Brightside page that you changed William Ashcroft Lambert to William Lambert. If William was indeed his common name then this would be fantastic. I have been researching him and was not able to verify this. I would be grateful if you could let me know your source/s so that I can update my own records. Thanks.Graemp (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a through link to another page that already contains the full name. As such the first name-last name piping is entirely sufficient. MapReader (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you don't have any evidence that William Lambert was his common name. That is a shame. The way you have edited it, will make people think it is, when it might not be. I shall edit it again to ensure this does not happen. Graemp (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cognissonance has removed the Dunkirk edit you did on June 25th without giving an explanation. Can you revert it back please and/or ask him why he deleted it? 86.8.201.245 (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to nominate the page, Parasite (2019 film), as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added and/or edited 9.3% of the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Port Gaverne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Port Gaverne for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved here[2]

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted edits I made to the Season 4 historical accurarcy section of The Crown's wikipedia page, namely a paragraph regarding the errors in the timeline during the IRA/Funeral Montauge in the first episode of the season. You noted in their removal that this was already covered, however nothing in the article addresses these particular errors. I was therefore wondering if you could go into more detail about the reason you chose to remove the information.

Hi - thanks for getting in touch. There’s a sentence already in that section, “The newsreel clips of Ireland shown alongside the story about Mountbatten's assassination included some events that had happened years earlier, and others that had not yet occurred”, supported by a citation, which addresses the point directly. Further, the additional edit attempted to ‘prove’ the point by citing bits of evidence, with the conclusion being that editor’s own, which is a direct contravention of WP:OR. That’s why the sentence we already have is preferable to the uncited addition. MapReader (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that per MOS:NUMERAL, numerals are acceptable for numbers larger than 9, but if you want to express them in words, please hyphenate the numbers below a hundred with more than one word. Hzh (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!, thank you for keeping the references on the 1917 (2019 film) article, when I saw "Tag: Reverted" I said "Who would revert citations?", but I then saw what you did and looks great, thank you again for restoring my citations. Have a beautiful New Year. CoryGlee (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It was the easiest way to restore the material deleted for a poor reason by an earlier edit, when a straight revert wasn’t possible. Kind regards. MapReader (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OED should completely tell you that the words Entitle and Entitled are different

Entitle - Verb: 1. Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something. 2. Give (something) a particular title.

Entitled - Adjective: Believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

There is a complete difference in the two words, hence why I have been trying to tell you that reverting edits stating something like "that led to the creation of a companion discussion show entitled The Apprentice: You're Fired!" was completely wrong. GUtt01 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GUtt01 You are wrong, and here is an American dictionary website explicitly telling you that you are wrong.[3]. As you will see from this article, the use of entitled that you describe is a 20th century development whereas the use of entitled to refer to the title of a book or play dates back to the 14th century. It is nowadays a more common usage in British English than American, but the article you are edit-warring is written in British English. You shouldn’t be warring over a change to the long-standing stable version of the page without discussion, and certainly not on the basis of your grammatical misunderstanding. MapReader (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British!!! And this argument being supported by an American dictionary website is completely wrong. How can you say that for this? Being titled is better wording than entitled, and trying to state that we should use that version is completely wrong. GUtt01 (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you presented was one of grammatical correctness, not preference. Miriam-Webster is saying you are wrong. All you have to do is Google a sentence using the word entitled for any well known book or show, and you will get lots of hits. For example here is an example that appeared in The Times.[4] Here’s one in the Guardian.[5] The Financial Times[6] New York Times.[7]. I would have thought it evident by now that, rather than Miriam-Webster, the London Times, the Guardian, The Financial Times, and the New York Times, all being wrong, you, GUtt01, are. There was no reason to change the page and you should be on its talk page rather than trying to edit-war through a change.

It may be still used, but its quite archaic to use it for sentences these days. Why would you assume that such a term should be used in a modern encyclopaedia these day? GUtt01 (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice that all of the links I gave you were notable, indeed renowned and respected, publications, and every single example was from 2020 or 2021? Again, you are talking nonsense - as well as shifting your argument, which initially was based on correctness. Since your earlier edits were based on a proposition and edit summary now shown to be false, you should return the article to its stable state, per BRD and STATUS QUO. MapReader (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did better. To avoid further arguments, I simply removed the words entirely: if we can't agree on either entitled or titled, then better to go down the middle and just go without them.GUtt01 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, no problem with that. Once you have resolved the remaining three occurrences, GUtt01. In future I would recommend doing just a little research before throwing around statements about grammatical correctness that cannot be supported with evidence. MapReader (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was that an accidental revert? My addition was fully referenced. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needed to be reverted, as you are duplicating information that is already in the article in its correct chronological place. It’s also mentioned in the lead. Adding the same fact in again for a third time, years out of sequence, isn’t a sensible edit. I am sorry I didn’t leave an edit explanation but it is fiddly to insert one when editing on a tablet with a username as long as yours. MapReader (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not for new information: its a summary of the article. The first mention has no reference, and erroneously is linked to a reference relating to Imperial College Health Care. I added it where I did, because that is the only paragraph in the whole article that concerns her Church ministry. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the article already contains a reference to her stepping back from her ministry, including a response to her decision from the Bishop. It makes no sense to include an additional reference to the same news elsewhere in the article. If you feel the article could be better organised, feel free to re-organise it, but we shouldn’t be repeating the same information in different sections of the same article. MapReader (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-checked the Manual of Style, I see that I was mistaken about its guidance for works of fiction that are no longer being made! I've reinstated your revert. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thank you. Rather than claiming ‘precedent’ you could have avoided embarrassment by actually checking a few past TV series, before making the edit. MapReader (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits certainly were corrections per the MOS. 1. I did not add a signature, I fixed the syntax of a signature added incorrectly by another editor (per WP:INFOBOXIMAGE) to remove the article from Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. 2. I removed the nationality because it is redundant per WP:INFONAT. It is obvious she is Spanish because she was born in Spain. Please restore my edit. MB 04:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy to which you link states clearly that most bio articles include nationality in the infobox, and also says clearly that if this avoided there should be a birthplace item in the infobox instead. Which you didn't insert. For signatures, personally I suggest that for living people, putting images of their signature up online is not sensible. MapReader (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that most infoboxes contain nationality, it says that most biography infobox templates contain |nationality=. It goes on to specify that the parameter is rarely needed and should only be used when it differs from the country of birth. That is not the case in this article, nationality is redundant here. I do not understand your statement that I "didn't insert" the country of birth. No I didn't, it was already there. Regarding the signature, you say you don't think it is sensible to include it in this article. Yet you didn't remove it, you just removed my formatting correction. If the signature is there, it needs to be formatted correctly. MB 06:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INFONAT clearly states "...as specified with |birthplace=", which from the context can only be a reference to the infobox. MapReader (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this article does specify the country of birth in the infobox in the birth_place parameter, |birth_place=Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain making |nationality=Spanish redundant. So nationality should be removed per INFONAT. MB 13:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to write a replacement text that fits in 40 characters. I don't agree with the current policy, as I wrote at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Conclusion, but that remains the policy and its effect is that anything longer than 40 is simply discarded in some contexts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but the overriding policy is BRD. Having edited and been reverted, you should be posting on the talk page, not trying to reimpose your edit by re-reverting. MapReader (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was Whiteguru, not I, who made the first change to the SD to make it fit within 40 characters. This was per stated policy at Wikipedia:Short description and specifically WP:HOWTOSD. You then reinstated your long description contrary to policy. It was at that stage that I reinstated Whiteguru's edit. Policy compliance is not subject to WP:BRD: if you believe that the policy should not apply to the FPTP article, the onus is on you to make the case for it at the FPTP article talk page. Meanwhile, given that anything beyond 40 characters is being discarded in some contexts, your version currently displays as Electoral system in which voters indicat, which is far worse. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "my" long description - it was the longstanding version of the page that I restored, because the alternative edit was defective. I have no idea who edited the original description, and you are correct that it is long. Fact remains, the right approach is then to go to the talk page. It would be an obvious nonsense to suggest that, merely to comply with another policy, any random shorter description can be edit-warred into the article. MapReader (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the status right now is that the description as it stands appears as an incoherent mess, because text beyond 40 characters is not displayed. I'm not that bothered really, so if you are content to leave it as it is, so be it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The change to the Short description was taken from one of the categories on that page. Are you now saying the category is incorrect? What is wrong with that category? What is wrong with using that category as a short description? This article was listed in the category Articles with long short description. See here With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, this particular reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A category is not a short description. A short description is, as it says, a succinct descriptor of the article subject. Thus the short description for the article Dog is “domesticated canid species”, which does the job in three words. That article is in all sorts of categories which, whilst correct, would fail as short descriptions - such as “Wolves”, “Scavengers” and “Mammals described in 1758”. The edit that was reverted does the equivalent of using one of these as a short description for “dog”. I fully understand - and agree - that a shorter description is needed; the one put forward, however, was a category that contains other systems and not a short description of this one. If you want a very general description, just describe it as a voting system - at least that would avoid misleading by singling out a feature that isn’t a distinguishing characteristic. MapReader (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the short description to try to be more specific while remaining within 40 characters. Given the length requirement, it's possible that a short description simply isn't going to uniquely specify the article's subject. For example, that's nearly impossible with biographies. That's OK; it's just meant to give more context to readers who aren't familiar with the subject, in deciding on whether or not to click on the link. The short description in combination with the article title do uniquely identify the subject. If you think the description can be improved, feel free to do so, but please stay within the 40 character maximum. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks rather clunky and awkward, but is at least correct, unlike the earlier offering that conflicted with the article. It wasn’t just that the description didn’t specify the subject; it was plain wrong, as a cursory glance at English local government elections makes clear. MapReader (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there MapReader. I noticed you reverted my edit on Emily Blunt. Guess I should've checked the talk page before making the edit (someone should place a hidden text note regarding changes to it). I am assuming that's why you reverted, and I understand. That said though, what I don't understand is the preference of using British over English. What reasoning would you give to using the former over the latter? Just curious to know the reason behind this, so that I may have a better understanding of why one is more proper to utilize than the other, and apply that when editing other articles. I see that you are English, whereas I am not, so you probably do have more experience regarding this. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 16:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British is the nationality, and is always the default, unless RS consistently describe someone differently (for example an actor known for being Scottish). If you’re deciding yourself that someone is English based on facts you have selected, such as where they are born, that’s editor OR if it is not supported by a convincing range of RS that consistently describe the person differently. MapReader (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is British the default, if you may be kind enough to explain? — Film Enthusiast^✉ 22:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because until recently it was the only citizenship she had. Whereas being English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish are all contestable depending on location of birth, parentage and grandparentage, self identity, etc., and of course some people are a mix and some people are only British. If you are going to advance a contestable descriptor you need citation - personal argumentation isn’t enough being clearly OR. MapReader (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for the clarification. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 16:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit in this article (Mr.)? According to the references I added, Mr. (with a period) is chiefly US and Canadian English style (which are North American). The original author also started the article with "Mr.". Per MOS:ENGVAR and WP:TITLE, you must not revert that. - Ivan Humphrey (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, changing from one var to another, particularly when the tag is long-standing, is specifically deprecated and you should raise as a proposition on the talk page for discussion, not simply change the tag. If the var was clearly established early on, maybe it would make more sense to remove the punctuation from the article title? MapReader (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, having checked the history, you’ll see that there are archived discussions going back at least thirteen years confirming that the article is in British English. The title was a move from the previous one of “mister” and the formatting chosen specifically so that it matched other related articles such as “Mrs.”. There was never any intention to change the engvar, and given the number of unpunctuated references in the stable version of the article, if anything should change it should be the title! MapReader (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - You reverted my edit with an edit summary saying "wp:poss". I assume you meant MOS:POSS which says "Plural nouns: For a normal plural noun, ending with a pronounced s, form the possessive by adding just an apostrophe (my sons' wives, my nieces' weddings). Morrison is a single noun and Morrisons is plural noun, so surely the correct wording is "Morrisons' market share..."? Dormskirk (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to review the article to see that Morrisons as the company name is treated as a singular noun. MapReader (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - The word is clearly plural. And your argument defies logic. If you google "Morrisons's " you get 10,200 results whereas "Morrisons' " gets 15,100,000 results. Dormskirk (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article again. Morrisons as the company name is used in the singular throughout. There are two “is” in the first sentence alone; as a plural it would have been written “Morrisons…are”. The Google search is irrelevant; not only are the format preferences within WP’s MoS not determined by numbers of search engine hits, but if you Google Morrisons with an apostrophe after you will just throw up every reference to the company (or indeed any other Morrisons) unpunctuated. MapReader (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow your last point but I don't think it is worth spending any more time on it. Dormskirk (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last point is simply that your Morrisons' as a search term doesn’t isolate results to only that form of punctuation, nor only to references to the company rather than other plural families of the same name. But it’s irrelevant anyway. We have a whole article written with the company name as singular, followed by “is” or “its”, not “are” and “their”, and two separate editors today who have made the same correction to the article. Thanks nevertheless for having raised the edit here. MapReader (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering why you tagged this with {{Use British English}}, given that the article was written by a Canadian editor about a US-themed board game created by an Austrian. I don't much care, but it seems like an inappropriate choice. Mindmatrix 22:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi as per my edit summary, I saw it as a simple retain (the only spelling I changed in the article was 'teepee' to align with the usage in the rulebook), as the strongest national ties are to Germany (the theme or subject matter isn't a consideration - as per books or films, e.g. Braveheart is an American film). It's not reasonable to go researching the nationality of individual editors - which we aren't obliged to declare - and in any case, location doesn't necessarily equate to citizenship nor citizenship necessarily to someone's English usage. In my experience articles are rarely tagged other than as British or American except where there are clear national ties, for example to Canada - and the descriptions of spelling in the WP article on Canadian English suggest a lot of variation within Canada itself, making that variety difficult to recognise. If you were the original editor and wish to assert that the article was written in Canadian English, feel free to change the tag (although I bet someone will query this down the line, in the absence of any ties). Incidentally it would be good to flesh out this article, given that the game is seen as a classic and there is a reasonable amount of material about it on the web. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MapReader

You should not have reverted[8] my linking of news sources. See MOS:REFLINK. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your note that the unbroadcast episode can sometimes be found on YouTube because a source was not provided. If you have a reliable source that the episode has ever been made public please add it back. Poltair (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poltair, it does regularly appear on the Internet - indeed I watched it just last week - but obviously not from reliable sources since officially it remains unreleased. Nevertheless it has been 'leaked' to the public, and it would be a shame if we cannot find some way of pointing people who might be interested in the right direction. MapReader (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical acclaim is not hackneyed and over-used. Even though your points are invalid, you have to discuss per WP:BRD. It is not hard to discuss. A reminder, since you've been constantly reverting (WP:3RR...) and opposing to discuss, you might easily be reported and blocked. ภץאคгöร 21:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary it is possibly the most over-used phrasing in the whole of WP. MapReader (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Plot" summary section of Downton Abbey: A New Era I replaced "Hollywood Hills" with "Hancock Park" because the character specifically says "Hancock Park" to distance himself from the Hollywood community. Further, when the character makes the distinction, he says "Hollywood," not "Hollywood Hills." You reverted as a "minor detail not key to the plot." But even if it was a minor detail, why revert an accurate minor detail to an inaccurate minor detail? Further, if idea was that identifying Hancock Park as "a wealthy Los Angeles enclave adjacent to Hollywood"—which I did since some might not have heard of Hancock Park—was TMI, then why not keep Hancock Park but delete the identifying information? You are much more into Wikipedia than I so I'm not so much questioning your judgement as trying to understand why my reasoning was wrong and yours is correct to help in determining future edits I might make. In fact, to get an answer to this question, I wasn't even sure if the proper place to put the query was on the Talk Page which I did first, or here. Homeboy (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the plot section is to describe what happens in the film, in summary, for someone who hasn’t seen it (or as a reminder to someone who has). As a general principle, filling the section with a lot of detail detracts from this - a common example occurs in war films where some editors try to insert the make and model of military aircraft or vehicles - you don’t need to know that to follow the storyline. All that really matters here is that they go to Hollywood. It doesn’t matter where. There is also a guideline for the length of the section, I’m WP:MOSFILM, whicn this one already exceeds - so it needs trimming to make it shorter. MapReader (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mapreader. Truth be told i am not too fussed whether a candidates full name is listed and or just given name and surname. As long as a consistent approach is used. When you reverted my edit you mentioned a Wikipedia consensus. Do you have a link to the discussion or can you give me a steer to it?

Thanks in advance

Benawu2 (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a discussion in the talk pages of the WP UK politics group, probably now archived as it took place a few years ago. It was prompted by the actions of an editor who had been including every middle name of every candidate in the election results summary boxes, using the argument that this reflected the ballot paper. The very clear consensus of the group was that common name - usually first name, second name - should be the default (also reflecting the requirements of BLPPRIVACY for candidates who are still alive, as policy is not to publish full name details for living people where these are not already widely published in the media), with middle names only retained for dead historical candidates who are non-notable (those that are notable already have full name details in the linked biographical article), and where inclusion of this information (if it can be cited) might help identify the person for future historical research. MapReader (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok works for me.

Benawu2 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I did not assume that it was written in American English. I noticed that there were words like "learnt", which is in British English and I left it alone, as it was perfectly fine spelled in British English.

I only corrected grammatical errors and noted that I grew up with American English grammar rules. But active and passive voice rules are, to my knowledge, also present in British English. Trngo (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Isle of Wight Council, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This revert was proper [9], because the change you made rendered it no longer a clear example of "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". In your version, all of the numbers were ten or higher, so all would be normally written as numerals. The entire point of that line item (which is laying out an exception to the prior rule you tried to conform to, defeating the purpose of listing the exception) is that 5, 7, and 32 is permissible despite usually writing "five" and "seven", and so is five, seven, and thirty-two even in article otherwise preferring "32" style for numbers ten and up (which is most articles; the ones that use "thirty-two" style throughout are rare, despite the style being nominally permissible).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all: the purpose of an example is to illustrate and clarify (indeed, to exemplify) the rules and guidelines that have already been stated in the main text. An (and specifically, this) example isn’t given as an exception, and isn’t explained as such (since such an exception would negate entirely a prior provision of the MoS), but is there as an illustration, and is only consistent with that earlier provision if the numbers in the example are those where there is editor discretion as to the format to be used. So that revert simply perpetuates a contradiction. MapReader (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Crown (TV series), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree my latest edit was definitely over detailed, especially in regards to the plot, your suggestion that “makes of aircraft aren’t mentioned in the film” isn’t necessarily correct. While Stuka is referred to simply as “dive bombers”, Collins and Mr. Dawson refer to the bomber that attacks the minesweeper and destroyer as a “Heinkel” with a brief mention to the 109 fighter; Collins: “Heinkel, 11 o’clock. She’s dropping her load on the minesweeper…109s off her starboard.” Mr. Dawson: “That’s a Heinkel. She go for that minesweeper there.” Even if the type of aircraft don’t necessarily need to be linked, some users have also been adding in the name “Tommy Jensen” in the cast list, but the “Jensen” name seems to have come out of nowhere; Nolan script makes it explicit we only know his first name. Finally, User: Zawed has removed references to the film on the Alan Deere article, saying that there is no official source saying he was the basis for the character of “Farrier” in the film. I have taken that to talk page. I don’t wish to sound impudent, but while I agree changes to the lead and plot section were not general improvements over what previously existed, you could have at least did a Partial revert as the “Jensen” name is definitely not “official” in regards to the screenplay.92.17.199.182 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless you should only include in a plot section data that is specifically referred to in the firm - it isn't for editors to try and deduce, and then link to, specific models of aircraft, unless this can be properly and independently cited. MapReader (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's so good to see other editors removing pointless fluff from prose from time to time. It's surprisingly rare. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. In my view an edit to an existing article that isn’t specifically adding cited content is almost always only a good edit if it achieves a net reduction in characters. Too many editors add stuff to an article as if their added sentence was stand-alone within the article, rather than taking the time to recognise that much of what needs to be said is already spelled out above.

When this topic is no longer ‘live’ (2026, by the look of it), experienced editors will be able to work through that article and reduce its length considerably. MapReader (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In English, the possessive of a word that ends with an "s" is constructed by adding an apostrophe to that word, not by adding another "s". Debresser (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's singular - please review MOS:poss MapReader (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just saw that you reverted this edit. As sourced in the infobox, the AFI and the BFI (arguably two of the most reliable cinema-related sources out there) state that Fury Road is both an Australian and American production. Per MOS:FILMCOUNTRY, "if the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I get that it's been called an "Australian film" here on Wikipedia for a number of years, but that doesn't automatically make it a correct information. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don’t state that it is both an American and Australian production. They list countries that had some involvement, which isn’t the same thing at all. That’s why there’s the bit in brackets in the MoS, to make clear that referencing needs to be direct and explicit. For some direct references, see here[10] and here,[11] a reliable US media source that actually explains in the second link why it is considered an Australian film, or here from UK,[12] or here from Ireland.[13] There are many more similar. MapReader (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for removing the incorrect category of "English expatriate actresses in the United States" that I put in the article of Helena Bonham Carter. I thought she was an expatriate in the United States because she appeared in American films like Fight Club (1999). In fact, she was not an expatriate in this country. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I would ask that you review the evidence on which you are making changes to BLP articles. Simply taking a guess because you saw her in a film is no basis for adding material to a BLP article, even if it is correct. In this case the article itself says that she lives in London, had you read it. Please @Ernsanchez00: don’t make guesses, especially with articles about living people - please always make sure you have a reliable citation to support your editing. MapReader (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about that, you're right, I should add a reliable citation/sources to the article to support my editing. Thank you. :) Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding this edit and the following one, if you have an issue with including what Metacritic's score indicates per its website (a score of 81 and above is "universal acclaim" per its grading system), then you have an issue with a lot of album articles. It's not "superlative puff" to include a literal quote from Metacritic that is even generated by Metacritic templates, including Template:Metacritic album prose. I have partially reverted your edit because I wholeheartedly disagree with removing it and I think your edit affects more than just this article. If you have any concerns beyond this point with including two words in quotation marks sourced to the website stating them, I think you would be better off going to WT:ALBUMS or some such talk page that will attract attention. Actually, there is already a thread there concerning the wording of "received acclaim from critics". Your edit summary also implies I have some vested interest in promoting the artist or am trying to hype up the album to readers, neither of which is true. I haven't even listened to the album despite creating the article. Thanks. Ss112 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is threefold. Firstly, despite MC’s use of “universal acclaim”, quite clearly as a matter of fact, the acclaim was not universal since there are negative reviews. Secondly, use of the word “indicating” in editorial voice implies that the MC moniker is accepted by the article, whereas as a third party quote, if it is used at all (which in my view it should not be, since it isn’t accurate), the editorial voice of the article shouldn’t be endorsing it, and thirdly puff terms like “universal acclaim“ are already specifically deprecated by the MoS. MapReader (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've started a whole thread about this at WT:TELEVISION and I see enough disagreement there on your recent proposal to change the MOS. Perhaps it would be best to wait for there to be some sort of consensus over there before trying to apply this in other areas too? It seems wise. I have no interest in getting into an extended debate here about whether or not it's Wikipedia voice or a "puff term", and as it's a user talk page it wouldn't accomplish anything anyway. Ss112 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MapReader. Just to follow on from Ss112's point here, Wikipedia has used Metacritic's "universal acclaim" quote in thousands of articles (including both FAs and GAs) written by (presumably) hundreds of editors for at least 14 years now. To overturn such a large implicit consensus, I'd expect to see a discussion involving a lot of editors, but I've read through the various discussions on the subject that have taken place across different talk pages, and none of them has involved more just than a few. If you want to continue to remove Metacritic's "universal acclaim" quote from articles, then you really need to create a RfC (assuming that there hasn't already been one that I've missed), and then promote it to the wider community. For example, your change would affect both Template:Metacritic album prose (used in over 300 articles), and Template:Metacritic film prose (used in over 1,500), but there's nothing about the proposed edits on the talk page for either. Best regards, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader: Guess missed the above from A Thousand Doors (talk · contribs) as still making the same edits that been disputed. Feels disruptive how you're continually making the same edit across articles that's been disputed. Indagate (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do take account of the existing provisions within MoS Tv and film deprecating such terminology, requiring multiple citations before it is used, and against Wiki’s editorial voice being used to appear to endorse such descriptions. Way too many articles fall foul of the existing consensus. MapReader (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MapReader. The existing provision in MOS:TV that you're referring to was only added in two months ago, by you. Not a single other editor supported your "C2" proposal, so you really had zero mandate to be adding it to the MOS, much less to be unilaterally applying it to articles and then edit warring.

As for MOS:FILM, the provision that I think you mean was added in last year following a discussion involving a grand total of six editors. You were the one who brought up Metacritic's indications, and only one other editor agreed with you, so, again, you had no mandate to apply the change to articles and then to edit war.

In any case, neither MOS:TV nor MOS:FILM applies to articles on albums, or video games, or musicians, so I'm not sure why you're removing Metacritic's indications from those articles too. You've been advised by several editors now that these particular edits are unhelpful and that you should seek consensus (for example, through an RfC) before you make anymore. I suggest that you take this advice. Best regards, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there isn’t considerable support for deprecating puff language like “universal acclaim” then you haven’t read the discussions fully, or been here that long. It’s a recurring issue. MapReader (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's support for restricting use of that in Wikipedia voice, not in quotes, as previously discussed. You're still amending this, please stop until you get consensus. Indagate (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a quote, it says “indicating” in WP editorial voice. Which is ridiculous with a significant minority of negative reviews. MapReader (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed this, the quote is in quotation marks and straight after the number so seems clear enough, please get wide consensus for the wide-spread established practice instead of being the only person removing it across WP. Indagate (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word indicating is in WP editorial voice, and needs editing out. MapReader (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please get consensus for that Indagate (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to say a quick thank you for the corrections you made to the content I recently added to Line of Duty. Putting the differences we've had aside, I really appreciate it and hopefully we can improve the article because it seemed to be severely lacking. I worked on it sort of backwards in the sense that I wrote the information for the series articles first and then merged what was relevant into the main article so it caused some issues in the flow and grammar. I'll probably be adding more production info regarding the fifth and sixth series as well as some overall reception and broadcast history content soon. When I do, I imagine there'll be more copy editing that will need to be done. My overall intention is to get the article to WP:GA status and eventually into a WP:GT with the series articles (possibly even WP:FA status way down the road depending on the quality of the sources). Let me know if you'd be interested in some co-nominations when I get to that point. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing using proper grammar, format and punctuation is pretty important, to get any article to good article status. If your account weren’t named after a children’s programme, perhaps it would be easier to treat the proposal more credibly? MapReader (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to accept my sincerest apologies. I missed the announcement that Doctor Who was moving to the CBBC and that cases of mass genocide and extreme violence were suitable for "children's programming." Regardless, even if it were classified as children's programming, I'm not really sure what my username has to do with my content contributions. With 19 GA's, 3 FL's, and 1 FA, no one has ever declined a submission or refused to collaborate with me based on my username. Anyways, if you're not interested, you could've been WP:CIVIL enough to just say no and saved us both the time. I'll continue to work towards it either way. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained clearly why it is not possible for there to be a swing calculated, when the top two parties are no longer the same. There is no swing recorded in 2017 and 2019 for the very same reason.

Read the document explaining swings first before reverting others edit. You have to understand politics first before making edits.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02608/

You started reverting my edits unreasonably first, and I reverted it once. If you think that’s is already an edit warring, then feel free to report this. Jeremy Hulber (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct approach if you are reverted is to go to talk, not simply make the edit again. That's why it's edit-warring. Please go look at some other constituency pages and check the results, and the swings entered - not just for this election but going back more than a century. Hopefully you will realise your mistake. MapReader (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MapReader. I just wanted to apologize if I got heated during the discussion on the Fury Road article. I'll try to expand on my thoughts on it closer to the weekend and be more clear and concise and balance out your concerns with my own. If you have any bullet points here (or my talk page) about what specific issues are (if its just a bigger picture, personal, or rules, I'd like to hear them. If they are rules, pages like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are all well and good, but if you could quote what parts you feel my suggestions are breaking, It would really help me address your concerns.

I'm sorry for misquoting you on the IMDb sources as well. I believe I misread another users posts on them pointing out we don't use IMDb as a source, and I skimmed your sources and found others that were not about Fury Road at all, and assumed good faith on their comment. That was not fair to you and I'm sorry I said that. I hope you can accept this apology and we can work together to make the article better in the future. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind you removing my warning, as it is your talk page. But if you do not communicate on the talk page addressing my comments, how do we progress? Did you read my follow-up I wrote last week at all? I think I've addressed all our concerns. My edit would still suggest we leave the film as plainly as Australian in the lead per the source I've found which covers the ground, and would leave the content in the article with a cite that goes into further detail. So I'm not sure why you feel this would cause any problems. If you could at least acknowledge you've read the post or maybe stress what problems it would cause for our readers or rules of wikipedia, then great. If not, I feel that I should go forward with I proposed as no one has said anything for a week otherwise and you wish I left the topic. You've wished I would disengage, but I propose WP:DISENGAGE you might want to do the same as you don't seem interested in elaborating on any new points I've made. I've made several, you've been parroting the same. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]