User talk:DocWatson42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the spelling of "subgenre" (18 November 2014)
Points to consider
  1. I bet that just about any hyphened word composed of two properly spelled words will not trigger a spell checker. E.g., Firefox is just fine with both "sewage-food" and "swill-Bolshoi", probably for grammatical reasons (using a hyphen as a compound modifier).
  2. Spell checkers have a deliberately limited vocabulary, in order to limit false positives, and "subgenre" may not be included in your spell checker's list, leading to a false negative.
Research completed

I checked before I started, and OneLook Dictionary Search gives four results for "sub-genre" (none of which lead to an actual, valid entry) versus twelve for "subgenre", of which:

  • nine lead to entries for that spelling in dictionaries;
  • one is Wikipedia's redirect to the "Genre" article;
  • one is the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary's entry for "sub-" (which only gives the syllabification for the word);
  • one is a 404 error for ODLIS: Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science.

Also, I checked the British side of the Oxford Dictionaries, and still came up with "subgenre" for a search for "sub-genre".

Thus I believe "subgenre" is the correct spelling.

Merger discussion for Swan Hill[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Swan Hill—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jonathan O'Donnell (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment sought for draft infobox Law Enforcement Unit[edit]

Hi DocWatson42, I saw your talk comment on Template:Infobox law enforcement agency (LEA) about the FBI template back in January. I've designed a law enforcement unit infobox User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/doc. Editors have been using for unit articles either Template:Infobox military unit (MU) or (LEA). Help:Infobox and Help:Designing infoboxes - I'm supposed to seek comment, and as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement is inactive, I will have to contact editors directly. Can you please review it - anything you would change/add. It could be used for example on Violent Criminal Apprehension Program instead of using Template:Federal Bureau of Investigation. While the FBI (LEA) would be for the FBI article only. Similar to the use of Template:Infobox national military with units then using MU. There is User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/testcases for testing.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Melbguy05: Thank you for this. I would add a coordinates= field for the headquarters (a pet peeve of mine is the burying of the Coord template at the bottom of the article), and make certain to specify in the documentation that the field is for the headquarters. I've made a small correction to the example(s), per MOS:RANGES. Also, while I'm perfectly fine with the use of "circa" in the Operatives field, note that it is usually used primarily for dates.
More substantially, the Program(s) field should have an alternative expression as "Programme(s)" (I note that you mix the spelling versions—see "Romanised" at the top of the Test 1 example(s)). I'm an American, but the Commonwealth editors will want that spelling option. And it would be more accurate to use "Acronym/Initialism" in the place of "Acronym" ("ICE" versus "FBI").
Sorry about some of that—copyediting is one of my primary editing modes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for reviewing it. I can add a |coordinates= parameter below the |headquarters= parameter similar to Template:Infobox government agency. I hadn't noticed "circa". I quickly copied and pasted information from the GIGN article infobox to use as an example. I can change that to a tilde. The infobox code supports both |programs= and |programmes=. Most infoboxes use |abbreviation=. I did find a few that used |acronym=. I wasn't sure and chose acronym. I can use abbreviation instead. Which one would you recommend?
A difficult title of a parameter to choose was |sub-units=. An example of its use would be an infobox for FBI Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. The Branch consists of 4 Divisions and 1 Group. |subunit_type_label= is a label so can be customized. Otherwise it defaults to Sub-units. It could have been titled Division if it wasn't for the 1 Group. So in this case Sub-units would be most appropriate. The FBI Branches use other titles for their sub-units including Directorates, Offices and Centre. Another title for the parameter I may have been able to use is |child-units=. Template:Infobox law enforcement agency uses parent agency and child agency as parameter titles. Sub-unit appears in the dictionary whereas child-unit doesn't and isn't a common term like sub-unit.--Melbguy05 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Melbguy05: You're welcome. ^_^ Answering your points in order:
I wouldn't use a tilde, as it is more ambiguous. "Approx." seems to be the best compromise, in part because it is what I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. Make certain that the documentation mentions the spelling option.
"Abbreviation" seems like a good choice, since it avoids the argument over "acronym" versus "initialism".
I would use "subunit" as it avoids the ambiguity over the terminology. Note that "subunit" is the spelling in both American and Commonwealth English (see also here). —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. I changed acronym to abbreviation. I added |coordinates= for the headquarters. The example I have changed to Approx. I need a better example that uses all the parameters but it will do in the interim. Corrected my subunit typo (I had sub-unit). I thought subunit would be the most suitable. I had looked for similar terms in a few thesaurus.--Melbguy05 (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Melbguy05: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I liked your (reverted) approach to Bach. Too many too large images, and too many sound files. I'd suggest to drop the sound files altogether, or give them a separate corner. We did that (dropping, place in compositions' articles) for (featured article) Debussy. While I agree that some pics need upright=1.3 (but no more) to make any sense, we should keep the others normal, and think about which actually help understanding his biography. I don't need another conflict with Francis, so propose here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you, though I went with my usual tools (galleries), and chose to leave the sound files alone rather than to venture into unfamiliar territory. Still, I agree—there's too much clutter, especially from the viewpoint of an admittedly very wide monitor window. I would rely much more heavily on Wikimedia Commons as a repository of the sound files, and reduce the size of the images to users' defaults, or 200 pixels if in a gallery. Both Beethoven's article (which I recently edited) and Mozart's (which I just checked for the first time) have a single sound file each, and manage to get by with regularly sized images, and Debussy's article (which I just dropped in on due to your mention) seems fine to me. Though I should state that I am not member of the Wikipedia classical music community/project, whatever that may consist of, but a WikiDee who looks not only at the typos but at the big picture of article layout, again from a very wide view.
Anyway, how do you think I/we should go about this? Post on the JSB talk page to try to build consensus for our proposed changes? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, and I yes, I think you should place the info on JSB talk, which is a well watched page. Going from there, you could tackle the others more easily afterwards. I think that the screenshot is convincing. Very generally, I'd think images used in compositions don't also have to be in the biography, - one item of title page, and one of a manuscript sheet of music should be enough. - Perhaps make a suggestion of improvement just for that screenshot section, with another screenshot, about what to drop and what to have smaller - because the article is so long. I know the feeling of seeing massive changes to an article, disliking two of those, and reverting the whole thing because sifting takes too much time. Feel free to make changes to "my" articles, - perhaps check Vespro della Beata Vergine, for Main page appearance on 1 September. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I'm afraid that due to my amount of real life work, I like won't be able to start the discussion on JSB talk until at least next Wednesday. (I'm also averse to conflict, such as the discussion might bring, so I tend to avoid it.) As for "Vespro della Beata Vergine", I've just made some minor edits. I prefer that the appendices be explicit and clear in their titles, so I would:
  • Change the title of the "Notes" section to "Explanatory notes" (since "Notes" is often used for citations sections).
  • Add a "Citations" subsection header to the "References" section.
  • Make the titles in the "Cited sources" subsection ("Books", etc.) into sub-subsections as per the spirit of MOS:APPENDIX.
  • Change the "Further reading" subsection into a section, again as per MOS:APPENDIX and alphabetize the list to match the rest of the appendices (it's currently in descending chronological order). I've gone ahead and added links to JSTOR to its entries.
DocWatson42 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for good proposals, I'll take some on board. The style of headers is more or less copied from Franz Kafka, my most successful collaboration so far, but I'll think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In the song Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), the English translation is just a translation, not the title of an official translation into English. Therefore I used sentence case, only capital for Lord, is common usage in the Bible and hymns. I'd do it differently when there is an English version, such "A Mighty Fortress" for Ein feste Burg - not really a translation, because "mighty" is not "firm" (fest) and "fortress" is not "castle" (Burg). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I now understand the why of your rendering, though I differ. I would instead use a prefixed explanation to imply that the translation is unofficial, but still use capital case. E.g., "approximately: 'Sing a New Song unto the Lord'"—. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's just differ then, please. - I would do so perhaps when the thing translated was a title, in italics. But for most German hymns, what we take for a title is just the first line, no italics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Being a minor work, the title wouldn't be in italics anyway. —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, I have tried to improve the subject article. Kindly comment. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made some changes, but it looks good. I think you should fill out the references' fields (author, publication date, publisher's location, publisher, ISBN if any, optionally the OCLC (WorldCat) ID number, and the specific page number of the citation (for the first reference, which is missing one)). (See User:DocWatson42/Help for my opinions on references.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for seeing it; I will make the necessary changes. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sir, It is done as desired. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: Someone else did some editing, then I did as well. If you have the specific page number for the first reference, that would be good. Otherwise I think we're done, at least with this phase. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sir, it is done[[1]]. Thanks for the help and guidance. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions[edit]


This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cabayi: Message received and understood. :-) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for my ornery comment[edit]

Hi DocWatson42, your edit at Template:Radical feminism was a reasonable attempt to fix a problem you were encountering in transcluded pages, as you mentioned at my Talk page. You didn't deserve the ornery response in my edit summary when I reverted; I apologize. You were the unfortunate recipient of collateral damage from some MOS:VAR-violating vandalism involving meaningless white-space changes that I've fought on and off in the past. I think the comment about "white space" in your edit summary must have triggered me. A better edit summary on my part might have been this: "That can be achieved better by use of <noinclude> tags," or something like that. Once again: sorry, and I'll try to avoid being triggered by that in the future. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you for the apology. m( _ _ )m [bow emoticon.] Your use of <noinclude></noinclude> tags does seem to have fixed the problem, and is not something I would have thought of—thank you for that, too. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, Greetings of the day! You were there on the subject on 3rd August 2019, I have tried to improve the same page. Kindly see. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RAJIVVASUDEV: I cleaned it up a bit, but I'm tired right now, and will get back to it in the next few days. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, sure! No problem; please take your time; in the meanwhile, allow me to add some more. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will Rogers phenomenon - Solution section[edit]

Hi DocWaton42,

Just saw you had edited out the Solution section on the Will Rogers Phenomenon article. I have undone this edit. I would be interested in understanding the rationale behind the initial removal?

Markstander (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to use work that you have written yourself. This is unwanted per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. The Banner talk 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Markstander: As implied by The Banner's reply, this time I had nothing to do with what I was supposed to had done (whew!). See the history here and here. Mine was merely the edit before yours (in which I performed minor cleanup per MOS:QUOTE and adding spaces and carriage returns to aid in editing), assuming you are also user 2a02:c7f:be99:6e00:495b:2271:a7af:d0e9. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Doc! I'm new to this Wiki thing. Markstander (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Markstander: That's okay. ^_^ (See my page User:DocWatson42/Help for some tips, links, and personal opinions on best practices. Gentle hint: In particular, see the sentences after the first bulleted list.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop...[edit]

...changing ereference sections from non-hierarchical headers to hirrarchical ones, as you just did on Zabriskie Point. These edits are disruptive and counter to policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: That took me a moment, since I wasn't looking at my notices, but reading your words and looking at Zabriskie Point, rather than Zabriskie Point (film). I prefer clarity in layout, and to be able to see what's in an article at a glance (at the table of contents). Why do you prefer "non-hierarchical headers" to sections/subsections? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting some help in article expansions[edit]


Since I stumbled upon related sources I initiated an article draft Draft:Irrational beliefs. I am looking for some help in article expansion. Please do visit the draft, and help expand if feel interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bookku: I'm unfamiliar with the topic (I'm a generalist/copy editor/cleaner-up of layout and references), but I performed an edit, a fair bit of which is according to my personal preferences in articles (see "Personal opinions on best practices" at User:DocWatson42/Help). Also in line with that page, I recommend using citation templates for the references (I prefer CS1) and linking as much as possible to the online originals. (I searched for but could not find "Religious Orientation, Religious Behavior, and Dogmatism as Correlates of Irrational Beliefs" online, only citations of it.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I hadn't known about Wikipedia:Drafts—thanks!—which I will be using (sometime, when I get around to it, as I have an article in mind that I think needs a total reorganization). —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DocWatson42: Thanks for your helpful edit. Usually Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request supports in behind the wall sources well enough when in need. Warm regards Bookku (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bookku: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DocWatson42: Since you focus more on copy edit is it okay to make one more request. I have worked reasonably on Draft:Superstitions in Sikh societies, Since I am still working on one related article I do not intend to bring it in article namespace as of now, but please do see if you can help me in first level copy edit of Draft:Superstitions in Sikh societies.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'll do it, though it will likely be in several days. —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bookku: I couldn't help myself, and started, though, again, it will be a while before I can put in substantial work. The last reference is confused, and seems to refer in part to two different journals, and thus needs to be cleaned up. Also, you should pick which date formats and variety of English you want to use, and add the appropriate templates (Template:Use dmy dates/Template:Use mdy dates; Category:Use English templates). —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and if you haven't already, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and apply for access to one or more of its resources. —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me![edit]

Greetings and felicitations. Within the last couple of days I enabled the "show short description option", but I already have the short description helper enabled (causing two short descriptions to be displayed), and the option does not display the description in the mobile version. I'd like to turn it off, but I can no longer find it. Where is it, please? —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DocWatson42, at the very bottom of your gadget settings there should be a "Show page description beneath the page title" entry; disable that and you should be good. Note that it seems to only appear on Vector, so you'll have to go to the desktop version if you're on mobile. (Took me a bit to figure that out, as I'm not even using Vector right now!) Perryprog (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert of revert[edit]

Hi - just a small note, I reverted your revert at {{Wikipedia:JSTOR/Userbox}} since the addition seems to create a spacing problem when the userbox is placed within a table. Aside from the coding issue, I'd agree with the earlier removal of the short description that it is unnecessary in this case... regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please insert only information sourced to reliable secondary sourcing; in this case, that must be done not only to verify, but also to prove something is noteworthy. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drmies: I can prove the conga line—[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]—but not its significance, other than to point out that it the film was released eight years earlier than Billy Liar. —[DocWatson42 06:34, 22 February 2021‎]

Query about location[edit]

Hi Doc: Thanks for doing a cleanup on black-sided flowerpecker today. I have a quick question. I've been putting "London, UK" in the location field for references, but I see you're stripping out the UK. I was doing that primarily to distinguish it from London, Ontario (which also has a number of publishing companies). Does this mean I should leave the country out unless I'm referring to somewhere OTHER than the UK? Or should I leave it out regardless of where in the world it is? MeegsC (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MeegsC: You're welcome. ^_^ I haven't actually looked this up before, but it's basically as I thought. See The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Ed. (ISBN 9780226287058, section 14.130: "When to specify state, province, or country of publication" (pp. 813–814) (subscription required); see also section 14.129: "Place of publication—city" (p. 813) (subscription required)). Section 14.130 states

If the city of publication may be unknown to readers of may be confused with another city of the same name, the abbreviation of the state, province of (sometimes country is usually added. Washington is traditionally followed by DC, but other major cities, such as Los Angeles and Baltimore, need no state abbreviation. (For countries not easily abbreviated, spell out the name.) Chicago's preference is for the two-letter postal codes (IL, MA, etc.), but some publishers prefer the conventional state abbreviateions (Ill., Mass., etc.). [...]
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Thus "London" for the UK's capital, but "London, Ont." for your example (as I don't have any recollection of knowledge of London, Ontario before this discussion). IMHO I would start adding the country to some cities around Beta (no modifier) and lower.
I just checked, and found this: Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher—see the bullet point "location" in that section. —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft help request[edit]

Hello User:DocWatson42 I’m new to the editing world of Wikipedia and have begun my very first draft on the acting style made famous by Nicholas Cage. I feel as though it can be separated from Cage himself into its own unique category thus deeming it fit for its own article. Another editor brought to my attention that it had been constructed in 2011 and then deleted shortly there after. I feel now having it be 10 years later we could all re-examine the merit and significance that It could bring to not only teachers and students of the fine arts, but give the general public and in-depth look at a unique acting style. Credible sources have definitely Went into the inner workings of the style and it is respected by film critics. My purpose in writing you is hopefully gaining insight from your point of you and not to take away from your busy schedule on Wikipedia and your own personal life but it would be greatly appreciated if you could add anything to this draft in hopes that it could someday be verified. Thank you very much for your time. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the Draft Draft:Nouveau Shamanic Elvisisalive95 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elvisisalive95: I've just finished editing your draft. (Please note that I am easily distracted, and thus am often a poor correspondent, so there may be long gaps between my responses.) For a start, since you are new, see User:DocWatson42/Help for resources and my opinions on editing best practices. As for your draft, I'm not certain other editors will find "Nouveau Shamanic" notable, but having read it I'm more convinced than when I started. If you haven't already, read Nicolas Cage#Acting style, whose existence will likely be cited in the argument against.
As for the draft, please see MOS:CURLY and MOS:QUOTE for the reasons behind a few of my changes, and MOS:HEAD for my changes to this section's title. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DocWatson42 Thank you so much for taking the time to read and edit the article I dedicated much of my time to recently. Every ounce of constructive criticism and advice is duly noted and heavily appreciated. I am looking forward to the outcome of this page and hope for its future.

With all respects and looking forward to corresponding in the future.  Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elvisisalive95: You're welcome. ^_^ Note that 1) leaving a space at the beginning of a line (as you did above) changes the font, and 2) it's customary to use colons at the beginning of new paragraphs in comment discussions to indent them, to make them easier to follow. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the tips! trout Self-whale...for when a trout just isn't enough I didn’t realize it would change until after I published. I appreciate all the help. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elvisisalive95: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What’s up Doc[edit]

Hello! I was hoping you could be of some Wikipedia assurance to me over at Johnny Weissmuller. I worked long and hard to improve that article. I mean hours of research, citations, taking what I read and putting it into my own words about a man I thoroughly honor and respect. I cited my sources, and removed text that was either not cited and/or words that did NOT sound like they belong in a Wikipedia. Like for instance a section called “special funny event”. I think I made the page encyclopedia worthy, and then one editor reverted all of my hard work. I was hoping you could revert the changes by this editor who deleted my hard work. Hopefully you’ll agree with what I changed it to. Let me know your thoughts ! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look at it, but a thorough review may have to wait for a week, as I'm busy in real life until then. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elvisisalive95: I've taken a little bit of a look at the situation, though I still don't have much time to devote to it. What I noticed is that the reverter, KIENGIR, has an interesting talk page. The phrase [edit war] appears in fourteen section titles on that page, with 134 matches in total. I suspect that you would have a good chance to have your edits restored were you to go through the dispute resolution process. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:DocWatson42 Thank you very much for examining the situation for me. I wanted to wait on your feedback before I did anything. I appreciate it greatly my friend! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also checked Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, and the user in question appears as [3959 KIENGIR 25,154], which, while active, is not very high. More information about the user can be found here: (though it is slow to load). Your first step is raise your concerns with KIENGIR, which, while it seems unlikely to do much good, is part of the dispute resolution process, and will help demonstrate that you are acting in good faith. (You may get lucky and convince KIENGIR to agree with you. It will also give you an opportunity to list your reasons for your changes—be sure to back them up with logic and relevant citations from the Manual of Style. This will be practice for if and when you need to make your case in dispute resolution (I've never been through that process). —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:DocWatson42 I value all this information for the future of my stay editing here on the great Wikipedia! While visiting the said user’s page, KIENGIR has been banned indefinitely! I personally don’t have a tool to help me revert back text quickly. Do you happen to have that ability if you do feel in your heart my additions were valid? I don’t mean to overstep my boundaries! I again thank you again for being a guiding light. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elvisisalive95: All you need to do is edit the old version that you prefer. Do take a look at the edits following yours as I think there is useful material in them that can be incorporated into your version.
I do have a quibble—quote: "Weissmuller made a total of 12 Tarzan films over a 17 year span. He was the only actor in movie history to reprise a single role that many times." Perhaps the only one in feature film history, or American feature film history, but see Wong Fei-hung#In popular culture. There is a claim in the first book below that Kwan Tak-hing starred as Wong Fei-hung in ninety-nine films, but without citing a reliable source. However, I myself once counted sixty- or seventy-something instances (separate entries of individual films) in the second book below. Thus there is reliable proof that Mr. Weissmuller was outdone. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wellstone successor.[edit]

The succession box with Walter Mondale is referring to who was the next Democratic nominee for Class 2 U.S. Senator from Minnesota. Norm Coleman was the Republican nominee for the seat, and was therefore not the successor as Democratic nominee. (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] I take it that you are referring to this edit. Actually, Paul Wellstone's article lists him in the very first paragraph as a "member of the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, Wellstone was a leader of the progressive wing of the national Democratic Party", not a Repulican.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. In my edit, I was saying that Coleman was a Republican, not Wellstone. For reasons that I go into below I was saying that listing Coleman as Wellstone's successor as the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat was inaccurate, given that Coleman was the Republican nominee for the seat. I didn't dispute Wellstone's political affiliation. (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I thought that since you are an editor whose (default) user name is an IP address that you were merely a spammer, thus I did not try to discuss the change with you, but reverted your edit out of hand. I recommend that you register and put something on your user page:

Personal opinion: When you start editing, it looks better if your user name is not a red link (which, in a user name, tends to be the sign of a spammer). Your user homepage doesn't have to be complex—as an example, see my German Wikipedia user page, which has a simple greeting. —Quoting myself from User:DocWatson42/Help

It would also make getting your attention much easier, since other editors could then use the Notifications system, such as the Reply to template, and be assured that you would receive the message. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that Wellstone was a Democrat, would you please be so kind as to undo your reversion? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not denying that Wellstone that Wellstone was a Democrat. I'm saying that Norm Coleman was not a Democrat, and thus he shouldn't be listed as Wellstone's successor as Democratic nominee for the Senate seat. Coleman was the Republican nominee for the seat and in fact was running against Wellstone for the seat before Wellstone's death, while Walter Mondale was made the DFL nominee after Wellstone's death, and thus the successor that should be listed in that succession box, as indicated by this source, which states "Mondale, who served two terms in the Senate and four years as President Carter's vice president, was lured out of political retirement to try to hold Wellstone's seat for the Democrats in the closely divided Senate". (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Heaven's Sake (TV series) moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, For Heaven's Sake (TV series), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster talk 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Discospinster: I created that as a placeholder, since it had not existed before, and I was curious about it. I'm likely to leave alone. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I am trying to look for a Wikipedia editor with a strength at medical content to re-evaluate my edits, I would like give attention to a content review request. Recently, I have edited the infoboxes of both Itch and Xeroderma articles. Does the content I added look correct? I tried my best to keep the content there in line with the content featured in the rest of the article, but the content in the infobox might possibly be incorrect. It would be advised if you check these two articles to re-evaluate those articles for yourself. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qwertyxp2000: I'll take a look at them in a minute, but 1) please see above(?) about how easily distracted and flaky I can be in replying, and 2) note that I'm a copy editor rather than medical expert. My curiosity and liking for medical dramas lead me to look up diseases, medications, and the like, and in doing so I wind up look for and fixing mistakes. Thus the awards. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both sets of changes look good, though I've made a few edits myself. The standalone "Commons" box template in xeroderma is technically against the MOS and may be changed by a third party, but I disagree with that rule, feeling that the placement of sister project templates should consistent from article to article (i.e., always in the EL section), and that there is nothing wrong with a box template or three. (Navbars are a different story—to me they don't need their own section.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. Also, I currently do not understand this "Commons box template" thing you said. Could you explain it to me further? I personally see little problem with the Commons box template stuff on medical articles. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qwertyxp2000: From MOS:LAYOUTEL ("against the MOS" above): "Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates." Bulleted Commons-inline and Commons category-inline templates will draw a bit less attention (not that I've had too many editors make a fuss about it). Heavily patrolled articles (e.g., those in the COVID-19 pandemic and New York City categories) will likely have more sticklers—not that NYC is relevant to this topic. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, true. Makes sense. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also have a similar request for Hyperthermia. Would you like to review this page for me? I improved the infobox of Hyperthermia article as done on two other aforementioned articles as seen on the header. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qwertyxp2000: Done. I only had one quibble—most of the cleanup was to the layout and external links. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also remember editing Peanut allergy, specifically to the infobox, and wasn't quite sure whether my edits to the infobox several months ago were okay either, so a good check there might be sensible too. The antihistamines content addition is a bit iffy, especially since it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, although (don't quote me on this) when I was younger I do solidly remember a student with peanut allergies and then there was this medication called "antihistamines" that supposedly helps treat anaphylaxis. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, a few quibbles with the infobox and more substantial cleanup to the layout, as well as adding and cleaning up references, in part to address your concerns about the infobox. (Moving the Medical resources template to the below the external links with the other horizontal navboxes is exercising a pet peeve; it did used to belong at the top of the section, but I disagreed with that, and make a point to correct its placement whenever I can.) Oh, and I'm personally familiar with antihistamines. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. Also, Pediculosis corporis infobox feels a bit off with that excessive text, and I do worry that said article may have a lot of original research. Adding references to back up certain points may also help too. Pedicuolis corporis article feels like it needs a major cleanup. And as an extra, Repetitive strain injury could do with a bit of a minor check too. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qwertyxp2000: My workweek is about to start, and I have a deadline coming up, so they may have to wait a week. </sheepish> —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's okay, take your time. These tasks are not time-sensitive unlike information relating to recent events. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qwertyxp2000: I couldn't help myself, and wound up do some editing anyway on pediculosis_corporis (some of per MOS:CURLY) and repetitive strain injury. I still haven't made a thorough review of the references, but you're right about the "PC" infobox—the caption should be reduced to a regular image caption, and any information missing from the subspecies article (Body louse) should be moved to there. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. I'm not a body louse expert nor have I ever encountered it before in real life, so I wouldn't know where to start for searching information about body lice outside of just trying to use my Wikipedia researching instincts. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I phrased that confusingly. I merely meant to migrate any information that is in caption, that is not in the body louse article, should be migrated to the latter before being deleted from the former. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure thing! Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Figured that a review on Atrophy would be nice to have too. What I have written on the infobox is written primarily based on the existing body content of the article. The "sedentary lifestyle" part is a bit off, but it shouldn't be too divergent of the content of the article. If that isn't sufficient, then it would be a good idea to look for a suitable medical article and find a mention of "sedentary lifestyle". In the meanwhile, how do I find good medical sources? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing is that I would hope a diagnosis part of the Atrophy article be added. I'm sure it is probably to do with checking the inside of the body with some machine or something, but I do not want to be a fool by adding original research using pure guesswork. I left that note as a comment on the article though. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jerusalem is not in Israel[edit]

Israel is an occupying colonial state created in 1948. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; this is not an opinion this is a historical fact. You are someone who can edit this factually incorrect statement, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: I'm not wading into that flame-war-waiting-to-happen. You can take it up with the International Standards Organization. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewing NerdWallet Suggested Edits?[edit]

Hi there DocWatson42! I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at our suggested edits on the NerdWallet TALK page here: Talk:NerdWallet#Suggested_Edits_to_History_and_Administration We have suggested additions to this page for the History and Administration sections - open to any feedback as well. I noticed you've edited the page before so was hoping you could be helpful! Thanks! CameronSays (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DocWatson42: Thank you very much for your review of my suggested edits on Talk:NerdWallet#Suggested_Edits_to_History_and_Administration. I have responded to your questions and was wondering if it may be possible to review again, and if appropriate, implement the suggested edits. Thank you for your time and consideration! CameronSays (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Script mistakes?[edit]

Did you use a script for these edits? [8] There are at least three mistakes, two are single blank insertions and one is a '?' insertion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GA-RT-22: No, as the notation "Mobile edit" implies, I made those changes by hand using a cell phone, which is not the best interface. The mistakes were all mine, alone. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Winter Swimming World Chamionships, which you proposed for deletion. I did this to add a WP:SPEEDY tag under CSD G6 and CSD A10 as it was merely a duplicate and a very obvious housekeeping issue and likely better served under that. --Tautomers(T C) 00:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tautomers: Okay—thank you. ^_^ I rarely if ever nominate articles for deletion, so I'm unfamiliar with the process. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DocWatson42: I am rather new to it as well but have been doing a lot over the past few days. It's possible I might have goofed cause it was PRODed, but I dont think so? Guess we'll find out :)! --Tautomers(T C) 00:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bold and Beautiful episode count updates[edit]

Hi Doc. I wonder if I may be given to update the exact episode number of The bold and beautiful on Fridays. BB1975 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BB1975: Sure, if you have a reference for it. I have no strong involvement with it, other than occasionally watching the logo scroll by—which is why I got curious and edited it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In your opinion what would be great references? BB1975 (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, a few small hints. (I see that you are a new user, so please pardon me if I cover anything you already know.) When you start a new topic on a talk page, use the "New section" link at the top of the page to create a new header. When replying, indent using a colon (:) at the start of the line. (Two single quotation marks start and stop italic text, three start and stop bold text, and five start and stop italic bold text. If you start a line with a space, it usually causes the text to be
indented and monospaced.
Starting a line with a semicolon makes the text bold and places a carriage return (line break) at the end of the line, including before any colons.
Wrapping a text string in double square brackets ([[]]) creates a wikilink (hyperlink internal to the wiki; more on the topic).
For more tips (and opinions) see User:DocWatson42/Help, in particular the parts about formatting references.
Second, CBS's official page looks like a good source, though I'm not very familiar with soap operas. (I tried The Futon Critic, but it does not seem to cover soaps as a genre, at least not The Bold and the Beautiful. Otherwise it's good for episode numbers and the like.) Because CBS's page changes regularly, you will want to archive it each time and include the new link in the reference. You can do this by registering with the Internet Archive and using its Wayback Machine (link). Anyone can use it to save a Web page, but if you're registered you can also save outlinks (pages linked to by the page you're saving) and screenshots.
You do not want to use most of IMDb, as it, like Wikipedia, is user generated. Only use it as a source for the news and press releases posted by the site's staff.
Whoops—I was thinking you wanted create a list of episodes, but I now see that I was mistaken.
Checking, I find that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, which will likely be more helpful that I can be on this topic in general. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Novelettes published as standalone books[edit]

FYI. I noticed that you recently edited Walter Jon Williams to put Solip:System in quotes rather than italics, which I reverted. The titles of books are always italicized, regardless of length. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danbloch: I'm aware of the rule, and was trying to distinguish between the book and the story. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon Hello, DocWatson42. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:For Heaven's Sake (TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: For Heaven's Sake (TV series) (September 8)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, DocWatson42! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bilorv: I didn't think it would be accepted, but the deadline was near, and I was not inclined to work on it further. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though, uh, I'm hardly a "new editor". You might want to edit that portion of the boilerplate. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DocWatson42: I didn't notice the editor name when writing the comment; it's a default message I write (with slightly varying wording) to all of the many new editors we get who resubmit immediately after draftifying. {{Promising draft}} is the right way to stop expiry, not resubmission. All editors have to use AFCH for reviewing drafts—no other tool exists to do the actions properly—and I can't adjust whatever test it's using to determine that you've not been invited to the Teahouse before. You can find out how it currently works and raise suggested improvements at WT:WPAFC if you think it's worth pursuing. — Bilorv (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"General sources"[edit]

You've changed a lot of articles I've recently done at WP:ITNRD to say "General sources" in the "works cited" section. This implies that they are WP:GENREFs, which they're not. It's also in tension with MOS:VAR, unless there is a provision of the MOS I'm unaware of that states "General sources" is the preferred term for sections listing multi-page sources. Could you please explain why you think this change is necessary? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: I'm trying to disambiguate the synonymous terms "references", "sources", and the like (such as "notes", which is used for both explanatory notes and citations), which cannot be told apart by the non-Wikipedian, especially when the sections are sequential to each other. Heck, I can't tell if "sources" are used in the relevant articles or not, so "General sources" seemed to be the best, if imperfect, compromise, because at least it is different from "Citations". Please use section titles that tell the (non-specialist) reader what they contain and what they are for. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: Similarly when "Bibliography" and (especially) "Literature" are used—I can't tell if they are used as background sources for the article, or are other names for "Further reading". Contrariwise, "Citations" and "Cited works" used together are quite clear, though I can't come up with a similar formulation for background sources that isn't unwieldy, unless it's "Background sources". —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point. "Citations" and "Works cited" is probably the clearest. "General sources" implies, to my specialist and non-specialist mind, that the book will not be cited specifically, which is why I find it inapt. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Catholic religious institutes sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why sic?[edit]

I was curious about a recent edit of yours [9], and why you added a <!-- Sic --> comment to "(Circa. 1943)". Get well soon. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it should be either "Circa 1943" or "C. 1943", but I checked the photograph of the B side on Discogs, and it is actually written "Circa. 1943". —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. Thanks. signed, Willondon (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanatory notes[edit]

Hi there. I partially reverted your edit at Lionel James that renamed the "Notes" section to "Explanatory notes". Per MOS:NOTES: For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes", or "Footnotes". Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bagumba: Actually, you missed a sentence of MOS:NOTES above the portion you quoted: "If multiple sections are wanted, then some possibilities include:" (emphasis added). This implies that the list is not exhaustive. I changed the section title because "Notes" is also used for citations (see a little further up yet in MOS:NOTES), and this could be confusing to the non-Wikipedian general public. See my discussion on a related topic with user AleatoryPonderings above at "General sources". I realize, as I admit to AleatoryPonderings, that I am violating MOS:VAR, but I feel that clarity of the purpose of the various appendices and Wikipedia:Be bold are more important. In light of this, would you please be so kind as to undo your edit? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your points. At first glance, "Explanatory footnotes" seems verbose. In any event, I'd suggest establishing consensus to update MOS:NOTES with your option, and what changes, if any, to make with "Notes" as a heading.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nemo bis: I just tried Internet Archive Scholar for reference no. 4 (Daenecke, 1966) of "Tydings–McDuffie_Act", and JSTOR is a little more intuitive. (I'm familiar with using search arguments/parameters, but JSTOR just lets its users click author/creator, title, and publication) I use JSTOR in part to fill out incomplete or erroneous citations (a pet peeve of mine is journal articles without a complete date), and having the citation summarized to the right of each result is very helpful, as is having the JSTOR (and sometimes DOI) links there. I am not in the habit of using Google Scholar—I rarely use it. If JSTOR doesn't have an article, I generally just use Google Web search to try to find it.
However, thank you for pointing Internet Archive Scholar out—I've bookmarked it (and also finally bookmarked both JSTOR and Google Scholar). —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wednesday June 8, 11am-5pm: New York Botanical Garden - Environment of the Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners
New York Botanical Garden April 2015 010.jpg

Hello DocWatson42!! The LuEsther T. Mertz Library of the New York Botanical Garden and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you and the general public of all experience levels to come to the Mertz Library in person and learn how to use Wikipedia! All skill levels welcome at the event! Experienced Wikipedia editors from the Wikimedia New York City chapter will be in attendance and available to help. A one hour training session will be offered at the start of this event covering introductory topics. Attendees familiar with editing Wikipedia can edit off of a worklist focused on the environment of New York City; as well as, a sub-list focused on the environment of the Bronx. The Mertz Library will pull topical media from their collection to assist the editing.

--Wikimedia New York City Team via Wil540 art (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you ^_^, but I am neither a beginner nor that close to New York City—certainly not close enough to make the trip worthwhile. DocWatson42 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Footnotes or Citations section[edit]

Hello DocWatson42. I noticed that you changed the section heading of "Footnotes" into "Citations" (diff), in the Feta article. I was the one who changed it to "Footnotes" a couple of weeks ago (diff). Wouldn't "Footnotes" be more ideal per WP:IC#References/Notes section? Thanks in advance for your time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Demetrios1993: IMHO "footnotes" is less clear than "citations" since the former can be used both for references and for explanatory notes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see; no problem. However, i have noticed that "Notes" – which is also preferred according to WP:IC#References/Notes section – is the one mostly used for explanatory notes; hence why i have been using "Footnotes" instead. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Demetrios1993: "Preferred" in this case merely means "most used", without an opinion on suitability. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capitalization etc. in article "Stephen Budiansky"[edit]

Hi, this is following up on your July 1 message to me at User talk: (now logged in as a good proper user) in which you write:

I'd like to re-implement my edits, based on the portions of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that I have cited. May we discuss that? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My reply:

I see that MOS:INOROUT does indeed specify what you say about punctuation outside of quotation marks. This rule strikes me as a triumph of hyperlogicality over long customary practice that will strike most readers as precious or just bizarre, but if it's Wikipedia's style, it's Wikipedia's style.

On capitalizing "The" in "The New York Times" Wikipedia's style seems inconsistent. MOS:THETITLE does give "The New York Times" as an example of correct usage, but then it also states under "names of institutions": "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (researchers at the Ohio State University not researchers at The Ohio State University)." Certainly standard and near-universal publishing style does not capitalize "the" in front of newspaper names with the sole exception of "The Times" when referring to the one in London.

I appreciate very much your courtesy in raising this with me, and now that I've given you my two cents I will shut up and not cause any more trouble on these two points.

Harkaway (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Harkaway: You're welcome. ^_^ (Link for my future reference: User talk:
Regarding quotations see here for reference, though it's sparse on the in-or-out part.
MOS:INSTITUTIONS (of which I was unaware) is consistent with how Wikipedia treats band names; looking for it I found MOS:THE. Titles of works are contrasted with basically every other usage in proper names. I feel the way you do about this, though in reverse—i.e., names should rendered as written by the source, within reason.
So may I change the edits back? (I want to be clear, per WP:EDITWAR in general.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, fire away with those changes, I don't object. Thanks & regards
Harkaway (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harkaway: Thank you, and you're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Insomnia"'s external links[edit]

Hi, in May you deleted the External links section at insomnia with the edit reason empty[10] (heavy paraphrasing on my part). WP:MED use external links sections to contain the {{Medical resources}} - as all the bluelinks within linkout to external resources. Whether that templates should be in that section is another discussion; but it is the current consensus. Little pob (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Little pob: To me it's a navbar and so I treat it as such. (The Authority control template also contains external links and is treated as a navbar.) Since it's at the bottom of the article, it's easy to find, so I don't see the need for a separate section. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DocWatson42; I'm in agreement that it's a navbar. That said, I hope you don't mind if I add it back as I find them until the concensus changes on its positioning. (This is in no way a threat to stalk your edits. I mainly add any missing ICD-11/10 codes to what's in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hot articles, WP:MED talk page, and whatever I've come across in work that gets me double checking stuff on WP.) Little pob (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Little pob: I mind <sigh>, but I certainly won't stop you (or engage in an edit war). Though I would appreciate a pointer to where Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine the placement of the {{Medical resources}} is specified, as the template's instructions do not mention an External links section, and I'm having trouble finding it in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DocWatson42: It's from the 2017 RfC. That it's not clearer in the documentation is an oversight on my part. I'll amend Template:Medical resources#Position, but also start the ball rolling to see if there objection to redesign the template as a navbox using {{taxonbar}} as extant example. Little pob (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Little pob: Thank you for both of those. I won't insist on the redesign—I'm mostly concerned just with placement. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Troy weight" article[edit]

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Tye (talkcontribs) 08:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is nothing to do with my message

I never edited nor contributed to Wiki

I write merely because you are the last editor of the Wiki Troy weight page.

The page is utter rubbish - and always has been. My fundamental interest is in why it is so bad?

Note that there have been three official accounts of English weights and measures in the last 50 years or so. When I say "official" I mean two published by HMSO and the third by Museum of Scotland. There is not a single reference to any on the Wiki Page.

The fundamental definition given cites the introduction to a book on metrification published in 1906 in the USA - and gives a false account of what it says.

Really - how come this dross keeps getting recycled? I am curious

Robert Tye Rob Tye (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rob Tye: Please give me the information on the three books you mention and I'll add them to the article, especially if you give things that they support. As for the lead paragraph's reference, I've moved it to the part of the sentence which it specifically verifies. If you have other suggestions as to how to improve the article, and references for those suggestions, I'll be glad to take a look. As for why, we're all human, and with the exception of the Wikimedia Foundation employees, we're self-selected volunteers who do this for fun, and tend to go where we are interested. Troy weights are hardly as "sexy" as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which get massive interest and thus editing. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Doc
Thanks for the nice reply to my grumpy criticism. I reply under two heads
1) how to revise the article?
The last three official accounts: (Skinner HMSO, 1967), (Connor HMSO 1987) and (Connor NMS 2004) all contradict one another concerning the history of the standard, at very fundamental levels. Skinner worked at the Science Museum in London on metrology for about 30 years and I judge got nearest the truth. Connor 1987 completely ignored Skinner's evidence and made a serious error in his own suggestion. Connor 2004 then completely rejected virtually all of his own 1987 work, (but his 1987 remains the HMSO official account).
Its not clear to me how a Wiki entry can easily cope with this situation. I can certainly re-write to summarise the position taken by Skinner, and its pedigree back to 1720 or so. Also the mutually contradictory positions of Connor I and Connor II and the factual errors contained in them – but its hard for me to see how that would not count as “original research”.
2) Why the current article is a mess
You believe: “Troy weights are hardly as "sexy" as COVID”
Money and weight have been to some extent synonymous since before 2000 BC. The links of money to gold and silver use are not quite gone, but decreased significantly about 1971. So maybe 100 generations thought the links of great importance, perhaps two generations differ. They raise profound and potentially socially dangerous matters concerning economic stability vs liquidity. Forgive me if I suggest that what you take to be “sexy” and what ought to be “sexy” do not necessarily co-inside
Robert Tye Rob Tye (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No reply to my last. Am a little curious that you acted to "improve" the page but seem uninterested in correcting the huge problems there. Will seek to discuss with other editors
BTW -I recommend you give some thought to the distinction between corroboration and verification - which is rather philosophically important.................. Rob Tye (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rob Tye: I'm sorry that I did reply sooner. I can't find the appropriate guideline, but there is this: WP:DISCUSSFAIL. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia editors (hopefully) have lives outside of editing Wikipedia, and are not likely to respond immediately. In my case, I don't like emotion-charged confrontations, even some that other people may find easy, so I tend to avoid them—as in this case, until now.
Your points:
1). If you can find reliable third party sources supporting your assertions about the last three official accounts (and I have no reason to doubt you about them), then include those source, though I realize that that is likely to be difficult. If you can't then do the best you can do, and summarize without going over the line of Original Research. :-/
2) Money (and valuta in general) is sexy. Editing a Wikipedia article one step removed (at least) from money, an article that (hopefully) will be here whatever happens to the current wars and diseases, isn't, whatever we might wish. Again, we're volunteers, and we do the amount of work we want when we can and when we want. Sure, it would be good if the troy weight article was a "featured article" and "ready to translate" (as these are), but I don't expect that. OTOH, we're not trying to, say, write stub articles on every single village in Iran (which seems to have been done), so it's a step above that at least.
3) I understand the difference between corroboration and verification, but not the point you are trying to make. What do you mean?
What do you want to do with the article next? —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)~~
Hello Doc,
Thanks for getting to the point: ‘What do I want to do with the text?’
I am willing to offer a summary of the three official accounts I mentioned in a Word/Libre Office format with appropriate annotations. The summary would include the obvious contradictions between (and sometimes within) the three accounts.
I would need assistance of an established editor to format the text for inclusion, and to defend the text from criticism. I do not know my way around Wikipedia conventions, and am too old to learn.
If you are interested in assisting, or can nominate anyone else who can, let me know.
The anonymous basis of Wikipedia is controversial, and I find it disconcerting. I spend my time publishing and debating in my own name on In terms of reads I am much the most read author there on this topic, regarding my texts priorly published in the UK and the USA (and translated into German and Chinese). The only other author on the topic with a decent showing regarding historical weight metrology on seems to be John Bosak (he has a personal wiki entry). Our focus is different but I suspect Jon will agree with all I say – and am quite willing to discuss the matter with him.
So, let me know if you wish to assist personally, or can point to someone else who would
Robert Tye Rob Tye (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit to the Sika deer article[edit]

I'm not sure if you were trying to right align all the images or what exactly the intent was, so I won't try to fix it, but one of your recent edits created a bunch of broken images. Could you take a look at fixing the edit? Thanks. lukini (talk | contribs) 05:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lukini: Thank you. That was a gallery I forgot to create. <sigh> —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alpha Kappa Alpha[edit]

For Infobox Fraternity, ZIP code is a recognized parameter. ZIP Code is not.Naraht (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Naraht: Oops! My apologies. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template placement duscussion: typo?[edit]

In your "I'm fine with it remaining at the top of the navboxes, or with it being moved to above and "Taxonbars" and "Authority control". ", is the "above and" a typo for "above any"? I just reread it after your post which referred to this statement. PamD 05:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PamD: I'm afraid I'm not seeing that comment in that discussion or on the Template talk:Medical resources page. :-( —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" I'm fine with it remaining at the top of the navboxes, or with it being moved to above and "Taxonbars" and "Authority control". —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)", in the post to which I thought you were referring in "I stand by ..." or similar wording (on phone, not easy to find). PamD 06:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PamD: Thank you. I've edited that comment, though I've changed my position since, and think that the template should be at the top of the navbars as it is the most prominent place in the stack, and which makes it the easiest to find. (However, I can't find where IM stated that before.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, your comment at "Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Discussion_regarding_template_placement" is a bit cryptic. I don't really care where {{Medical resources}} is positioned, but I do think it ought to be clarified within MOS:ORDER. Your preferred option would seem to be that it should be above bullet 4 ("Other navigation footer templates (navboxes)"), of the proposal set out at the top of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Changing placement of Template:Subject bar, Template:Portal bar, and Template:Sister bar, the long discussion in which you commented. PamD 07:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PamD: Ah—that's what I was thinking of. Thank you for finding it for me. I'll post there. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, DocWatson42. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Rãmâ Mágär (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My parsnel Facebook account hack Rãmâ Mágär (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to post this. DocWatson42 (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Rãmâ Mágär (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes my account hack time Rãmâ Mágär (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Rãmâ Mágär (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rãmâ Mágär: Please stop posting this, and seek help from Facebook. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

carriage return![edit]

Regarding your edit to centrifugal governor - the summary was the first time I've seen the phrase "carriage return" in I don't know how many decades! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DavidWBrooks: I am old enough that I took "typing" rather than "keyboarding", so "carriage return" is more natural to me than "line break". —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me, too. I say "add paragraph break" in my edit summaries. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC limit[edit]

Hi! I saw in this edit that you mentioned that Template:TOC limit no longer applies? What exactly do you mean by that? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the new (desktop) layout it doesn't seem to serve a purpose anymore, since the tables of contents are in the left sidebar instead in the bottom left of the lead section, and thus the template no longer limits the amount of space the TOCs take up in the body of the article. I just tested it on Politics of the United States (using "TOC limit|3"), and it had no effect on displaying the sub-subsection headers. Is there another use or purpose for them of which I am unaware? (I'm guessing the {{TOC right}}, {{TOC left}}, and {{TOC center}} templates are also now obsolete, barring another change in the layout.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I'm aware, Vector Legacy (2010) remains the default for most users and, as such, the TOC limit is still useful. I see no reason to remove it, given that it doesn't affect the current layout but remains helpful for users who prefer the old. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krisgabwoosh: I'm sorry—I changed over/got changed over to Vector (2022) and thought that was that. I'll stop deleting the TOC limit templates. (Now that I know that the older version still exists, I'm switching back.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rad, no problem; I personally prefer Vector (2022) but I edit in Vector (2010) as it's the default most users see. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krisgabwoosh: I have a wide display, much of whose space Vector (2022) wastes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Thanks for your work on W, and extra thanks to you for your additions to the Cherry (Comics) page.

I am in fact now working with the Welz family to bring Cherry back into print next year and have already developed the first Cherry Action Figures as of last year.

I can provide information and links for you to further develop the Cherry wiki page as we go forward with new developments.

THX! Gavriel Discordia Discordia Merchandising / Discordia Publishing

Ghm327 (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ghm327: Thank you, and while I am willing to help I should warn you that 1) I am not the most consistent or prompt correspondent, and 2) you will need to read and follow the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest rules. As an example of (few) my collaborations (good and bad), see for instance #Reviewing NerdWallet Suggested Edits? above. User:DocWatson42/Help may also be of assistance. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your interpretation of MOS:EMDASH[edit]

In your edit to Lateen[11] you changed spaced en dashes to em dashes. I see nothing in MOS:EMDASH that suggests such a change is desirable. Am I missing something, or is this just your personal preference?

I have reverted that aspect of the edit as, to my mind, the result was text that is awkward to read. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: I'm sorry—I was editing using my phone, and thought those were spaced em dashes, not spaced en dashes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, no problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThoughtIdRetired: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, DocWatson42![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 00:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moops: The same to you and yours. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moops T 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Nineteenth First Edit Day![edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, DocWatson42. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Borromean rings[edit]

Hi. I recently searched the history of Borromean rings, and I've found your edit here. I would like to use the {{multiple image}} again, but the fact that your edit summary says that "...including image placement (to prevent the overrunning of the appendices in wide browser windows)...", and honestly I do not want any warring edits appears in that article again. Any objection? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I use the Gallery tag instead of the Multiple image template because the with the former the images are not pushed down by templates or other images—the latter generally flow around the gallery. This is what the appendices looked like to me (in my admittedly very wide browser window) before and after my edit. You could use a {{Clear}} with the Multiple image, but IMHO that produces a less elegant result. —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DocWatson42 I see. However, I don't think it's a good idea to replace it with "gallery tag" just because your browser's zoom is around 60–70%, in the sense that your window browser is wide and many letters are getting smaller (and probably some images push down next image). I'm assuming that the reader's window browser is normally at 100% zoom, but there is some reader that comfortable with wider windows than the normal one.
If that's the case, I would like to alter it back using {{multiple image}}, but I will put it on the left side to avoid pushing down the image after it. Sadly, MOS:SANDWICH prevents us to put two images that will sandwich the text—even though the text won't be sandwiched for a normal zoom window— and it gets even worse if I add {{clear}} just for only preventing MOS:SANDWICH. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: Actually, my browser window is at 100% zoom—it's "just" that it's 5120 pixels wide. Perhaps you could make a draft of the article and post it to one of your sandboxes so that I can see what you want to do, and we can discuss it? BTW, you don't need to "@" me—users automatically receive notifications when a change is made to their talk page. I use the {{Ping}} template for my replies because I don't assume that users have subscribed to my talk page or the sections in which our discussions take place, and because I feel it's polite to notify them of my replies. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, then. Thank you for reminding me about the pinging. I'll do the image thingy later. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: You're welcome, and I look forward to the draft. —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will pinging you on my talk page if I have done some test. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: Okay. Thank you. :-) —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference section title change & "general references", part 2[edit]


I see you've been changing various notes & references sections to comport with your preferred style in articles you haven't otherwise edited. I don't think this is a good idea or helping out - can I convince you to either not do this, or to at least use a more typical style rather than the eccentric one you seem to prefer? Your changes, as is, aren't beneficial.

To go into some more detail, there's a section of the Manual of Style on Layout at MOS:REFERENCES that discusses the standard Wikipedia expectations. Notably, there is *not* an official standard, and per MOS:VAR linked earlier to you above, that means that you probably shouldn't go around "standardizing" them. But if you did go around performing such standardization, it would be expected you would hew to the usual versions of the header titles mentioned there, and not your own custom system, especially when the custom system clashes with what the original editors of the article intended. For example, you seem to prefer writing out "Explanatory footnotes" when MOS:REFERENCES suggests "Notes", "Endnotes", or "Footnotes". There's no need for the extra word "Explanatory" (WP:CONCISE) - the context will make this obvious.

Your seeming preferred style of "Citations" for references and "General and cited references" for works cited is also not listed in MOS:REFERENCES, and is further confusing since you're using the term "references" differently than how most Wikipedia articles use it. Which would be fine if you were just working on an article you are a major editor of the content of, but is less good as a "WikiGnome" task affecting many articles you don't work on. As already noted, I highly question whether this is worth doing anyway, but if you do it, at least use a non-controversial and accepted style, such as "Notes" (side explanations), "References" (in-line refs), and one of "Works cited / Bibliography / Sources / Citations" (sources used by multiple short form in-line refs).

Finally, you cite above the needs of non-specialist readers, which is laudable! However, you are making things worse not better on that point. "General and cited sources" is problematic on multiple layers. Most readers have no idea what distinction is being made here; "general references" is a bit inside-baseball of a term for Wikipedia. Even worse, as was pointed out to you before, this is generally incorrect. Why are you claiming sources are general references when they're not, for people who even know what they mean? "General sources" have a bit of a pejorative flavor on Wikipedia since they're not preferred, as a reminder, and suggests that the article editors couldn't be bothered to actually cite where these sources are used. You've changed an article I edited that does NOT use general references to say that it does use general references, which is just wrong. If you don't want to look in the edit history and check, that's fine, but don't change the section title then! Non-specialist readers will find your section titles more confusing; "bibliography" is not an obscure or forbidden word, while "General and cited sources" raises unneeded questions as to what exactly is meant and what distinction is being made.

(Usual disclaimer that some of the changes you've made in your edits seem to be harmless, so I'm not saying to stop such edits entirely; just I strongly question the utility of the "renaming references sections" parts.) SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Negative numbers[edit]

Negative numbers are preceded by a minus sign (-), and not by any other type of short horizontal line character, such as a hyphen, an en-dash of an em-dash. Do not replace minus signs with any other these, and if you have already done so, please revert your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: If I did so, it was not my intention, and I'm sorry. If it was in an infobox, I would have been attempting to replace a hyphen-minus with a true minus sign. Would you please be so kind as to point me to the edit(s)? in question? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the edit in question, checked, and those are minus signs that I used (as opposed to hyphen-minus signs). The rest of the edit also looks to be in order—Putney, Vermont is classified as a "city" per the instructions of the {{Coord}} template's parameters, and "ZIP Code" is the correct capitalization (see citations 2 and 4 of the linked article's lede). In light of those facts, may I please undo your reversion of my edit? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Hello? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Done—thank you! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spaced em dashes to unspaced em dashes.[edit]

Hi! [12] - why such changes? Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry—changing the en dash in the wikilink was an unintentional mistake, but the wikilink in my comment explains the other change. I thought I saw a second spaced em dash in the text of the section, and in monospaced mobile it is difficult to tell dashes apart. — DocWatson42 (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pelmeen10: So may I change the em dash back to unspaced? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes if you think it's better than spaced en dash. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]