User talk:-sche/Archive 3

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Second Boer War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen you the past few days on Wiktionary. I was a bit concerned (though I'm also a bit of an anxious person).

Did you know that we're discussing making a proposal on adding a category to Wikipedia regarding phonemes by language? You can find the discussion here, if you wish to contribute. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chinese as a foreign language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. -sche (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Zimmerman. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Sarajevo. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Mexican English. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I had some issues/questions about the closing of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Clarifying/updating WP:BIRTHNAME with respect to MOS:IDENTITY. First of all your comment "birth names may be introduced by either 'born' or 'formerly'", I took that to mean you interpreted option 1 and option 3 to both have consensus. In my opinion the options conflict, as one dictates born, the other specifies formerly. I also took issue with there not being an option an option to include the factual birth-name for all people, that would be an issue with the neutrality of the proposal, as I expressed in my view that WP:BIRTHNAME and MOS:IDENTITY within the discussion, do not necessarily conflict. The first thing I brought up however, is much more of an issue for me.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In the comments on options 1 and 3, most users seemed to be more concerned that notable birth names be listed than how they be introduced (e.g. NaBUru38, whose complete comment was "if the birth name is notable (like Manning), it should be in the lead"), and several users spelled out that they didn't care which word was used, namely Resolute, Sławomir Biały, Dirtlawyer1, me, and Aquillion, who said "I don't think that this aspect of the word-choice is really significant enough that we need to establish it via policy one way or the other." I commented on the 19th, a week and a half before closing the discussion, that "There seems to be nearly unanimous support for options 1 and 3 [...and] given the nature of them and the comments made on each, I take that to mean articles can use either 'born' or 'formerly'", and the only response was EvergreenFir's agreement with that assessment. On that basis, I felt that options 1 and 3 did not conflict and that the broad support for listing only notable birth names was not prevented from being recorded by the question of which word to use. -sche (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally advocate consistency, but I suppose both born and formerly are accurate. Born is a better clarification, but I suppose as the discussion only concerned the lead, it can be stated as born in a section below if necessary. I do think the proposal was a bit bias for not offering an option to treat subjects normally (per WP:BIRTHNAME), and include the subjects birth-name in the lead if known in all cases (to preserve factual history). However, unless someone else raises the issue, I think I'll leave it be. I was considering challenging the close, but I'm content with the reasoning you gave here for the main issue that I was concerned with. Thank you,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Inasmuch as WP:BIRTHNAME (prior to being clarified as a result of the VPP thread) guided users to list birth names in all cases, the most apparent option for continuing the policy as-it-was was to oppose the proposed clarifications/changes to it. If someone had wanted, they could have added a section for supporting the policy as-it-was as distinct from opposing changes to it, but I think that would have been as confusing as [non-]option 5 in the other IDENTITY discussion (which, one can note, garnered very few comments in any direction).
In any case, yes, the discussion and WP:BIRTHNAME itself (the relevant section, from "While the article title should..." to "...December 17, 1987") only concern the lead. It's interesting to me how many things different subsets of Wikipedians either think are vital in the lead or think should be removed from the lead; the other day there was discussion of whether pronunciation information should stay in the lead or not. I'm tempted to propose that all non-notable birth names (even of cisgender people) be moved out of the lead and into "Early life" sections, since they are (by definition) not among the "most important aspects". -sche (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I lean the other way on that. When researching a person, a birth name is very valuable because it will be listed that way in a lot of places (e.g. legal records, etc.). I think it is among the most important aspects, especially in articles about individuals known popularly by a single name (i.e. Cher).

And to address the option of opposing for continuing policy as is: "Note, I do not offer a fourth option of using "born" for all people as that seems far too counter to MOS:IDENTITY", was the opinion offered by the proposer. I took issue with that, because for a truly neutral proposal, they would have offered the option even if their opinion didn't align with it. Their opinion was that the two policies conflicted. It would have been better if that were determined by community consensus, as opposed to by the person who formats/offers the proposal. My issue was with that, which I perceived as bias.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there -sche, just wanted to let you know that there was some discussion about this on the talk page for Transexual. This is in case another editor reverts the edit or changes it back. Have a good one, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shit (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about the transgender actress Saga Becker. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Connally. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satu Mare Swabians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swabian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 and Flyer22: This is wordy and general enough (far enough off the topic of the Jenner RFC) that I wasn't sure it'd be appropriate there, and couldn't think of where else to post it, but thought it might be of interest to you:

I used the search bar to search for instances of "cisgender" and went through all 224 results.

• 102 are uses of {{Transgender sidebar}}/{{Gender and sexual identities}} which link to [[Cisgender]],
• 1 is that article,
• 1 is the disambig page [[Cis]];
• 2 more are links in the see-alsos of Womyn-born womyn and Isis King (the latter could be dropped as insufficiently relevant);
• 2 hits are redirects,
• 8 are in quotations or refs' URLs (e.g. Zach Wahls, Eddie Redmayne),
• 8 mention the word as a word to define it or note its lexical properties (e.g. List of medical roots, suffixes and prefixes, Retronym, Transgender, Gender)

Of the remaining 100, I think many could be changed/dropped under existing policies and guidelines, and probably with little fanfare or opposition. On the other hand, quite a few uses seem like they'd be hard to change or remove and I'd be interested in your thoughts on them. (Searching the site for "cisgender -bigender" is a decent way of filtering out the hits that are only due to the two above-mentioned templates, if you want to look at all the hits yourself.) Examples:

• Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male): "A trough level of 500 ng/dl is sought. (Normal range for a cisgender male is 290 to 900 ng/dl)." — I guess this could be changed to: "...for a biological male is..."
• Gender in Bugis society: "Two are analogous to cisgender male (oroané) and female (makkunrai), and the remaining three are not easily comparable to Western ideas of gender: bissu, calabai, and calalai. The latter two could roughly be compared to transgender females and males respectively, whereas bissu is a more abstract identity." — I'm not sure how this could be reworded, since the article is discussing two male and two female genders, one being transgender and the other ... "not transgender"? "Two are analogous to not-transgender male (oroané) and female (makkunrai) [...] two could roughly be compared to transgender females and males"? That sounds awkward.
• Angelina Valentine: "She won the XRCO Deep Throat Award in 2009, and was the first cisgender woman to perform with transsexual star Kimber James."
• Queer: "umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual or cisgender" — "umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual and that are transgender, genderqueer, or third-gender"? That seems unnecesarily prolix.
• Dena Hankins: "...called her novel Blue Water Dreams, featuring a love story between a queer cisgender woman and a transgender man, an "exciting debut", and..."

-sche (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't clicked through the articles yet, but from your excerpts I think at least some of these are cases in which "cisgender" is a good choice. For example, in the case of Angelina Valentine, if what the writer means is that non-cis women had performed with Kimber James, then "cisgender," which draws attention to the fact that Valentine is not trans, gets right to the point. The problem with "biological male" is that it presupposes that trans men do not have any biological basis for being so, and that's probably not true. "Non-transgender" does not have this connotation. We could even say "normal range for an adult man," because that is the normal range for adult men and still would be even if someone saw fit to factor the small number of trans men in the population into it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, there. I was reading an RfC guideline yesterday and it stated we are not supposed to put the comments in separate buckets because it breaks the flow of conversation.

Also, is there a way to reach out to Editors that have issued "pa" template warnings to Editors who were editing sanctionable topics? They would probably be good candidates for the discussion.

Finally is there an invite that could be placed on the 20+ "Caitlyn Jenner" affiliated pages? I'll place them if that would help. Just tell me how.

Oops, one more: How do we handle the current deadnaming of Caitlyn on her own page since the current discussion says primary pages do not fall under the scope of the discussion? ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Hi! By 'separate buckets', are you referring to the division of the VPP thread into sections for 'Support Always Both', 'Support Both If Relevant', etc? Such sections are routinely added because they make threads easier to follow; the previous "RFC" also had such headers. (Btw, someone has pointed out on WT:MOS that technically both the previous thread and the current threads are "VPP threads" rather than "RFC"s, but you'll notice how many of the editors commenting on WT:MOS, including me, keep calling them RFCs out of habit, lol.)

I'm not sure what a "pa" template warning is, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that calling editors who received disciplinary-sanction warnings for editing the topic area would be wise (and it might be construed as canvassing). You could ask in the discussion section how others would feel about it.

Since the RFCs concern the general topic of how to refer to any trans individual, I'm not sure soliciting input from 20+ pages tangentially affiliated with one specific heatedly-discussed figure would be a good idea. First, it might appear to readers of the notices that this RFC was re-litigating the previous one which was (judged to be) on Jenner specifically, which some commenters on WT:MOS have suggested we should avoid. Second, it might bring in more heat than light.

Primary pages are covered by the first of the two threads.

As far as I can tell, the only mentions of "Bruce" on [[Caitlyn Jenner]] are in the lead, or in quotations or the proper names of things like "Bruce Jenner's Westwood Centers for Nautilus & Aerobics". Assuming that the quotations and the aerobics center are notable, they aren't affected by policies/guidelines on how Wikipedia in its own voice names trans people, and so they'll stay. (But one could question whether the aerobics center is actually notable.) The mention of her previous name in the lead will also stay, since her previous name is notable. -sche (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"pa" is a LBGT/Hepiphilia topic code for Discretionary Sanction Alert templates. The pa topic code mades the notice and wikilinks topic specific and easy to set. The number of topic codes is staggering. My idea was to use the logs of Editors who place the DS/Alert/pa template to alert them to the current VPP MOSIDENTITY discussion.

Yes, the guideline I read yesterday said to let comments flow naturally instead being sectioned. BTW I sectioned an AfD for an article I created and was trying to save and Drmies blanked my attempt. I got the idea from SamWalton9 when he so chunked up the discussion for the Edit Filter discussion at VPP.

You're working hard on this. I hope it gels a new policy. Where is the proper Talk page for this?

PS: Do you know where to submit a tip-of-the-day suggestion?

PPS: Looking at your reply what is the effect of putting 8 brackets around Caitlyn's name? I'm always up for a new shortcut. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 00:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

At VPP shouldn't "Generally it is unnecessary to go in detail over changes" read "Generally it is unnecessary to go in *to* detail over changes"? Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ceremonial pole. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people with autism spectrum disorders. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russell Wilson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)