User talk:JMF

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Do you think it's time to strip out all the new station stuff from this article and move appropriate bits across (if needed)? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I would (per stations on the Marston Vale Line and WP:CFORK) but it would be wise to propose it first at UKRAIL. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems someone else had the same idea (diff)! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

And I now realise that I meant to leave this comment on a completely different editor's talk page! Apologies. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

i did wonder but, as it came immediately after my edit to the MVL, it must be intentional. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yup. I saw two edits side by side and replied to the wrong person. Must be an age thing! 10mmsocket (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It is actually Keynes', in the Bletchley bus example. I was an English teacher once. Words ending in s have their own rules, when not pluralised, based on whether or not it's pronounced verbally. So you would say James's car but not James' car...but Venables' England team, not Venables's. Romiley401 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk page lurker here. @Romiley401: Who says it's Keynes'? As a teacher, you will know that English is not a prescribed language, and you were likely using rules made up by whoever wrote the curriculum you followed. Like many publishers, Wikipedia has its own guidelines for how English is written, and in this case it's Keynes's, as shown at MOS:'S. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Keynes/Keynes's is exactly like James/James's - I can't see any reason why it should be different and you don't give one as the reference to Venables is not at all similar. The rule, as it is commonly expressed, says "if you would suffix -ez to indicate possessive when speaking, then append 'apostrophe s' when writing". Most of the exceptions, like Achilles and Dumas, are foreign words. See Apostrophe for the long version. Whether or which, we follow the MOS. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You just reverted my edit on this article. I understand your action, where do you think it is right to add that information? BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

There isn't really anywhere it can go. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Without analysis, it is just another anecdote, one of many that maybe adds up to some conclusions about the overall effect. But it is not for us to draw any conclusions or to judge what is especially significant, because that violates WP:SYNTH & WP:NOR. That is the key point.

Of course that is my take on it and if you disagree, you can certainly take it to the talk page. But such reports of isolated incidents have been declined before because the article is about the philosophy, not a blow-by-blow catalogue. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

and if you think it is at all remarkable that potential or actual criminals get advice on how to avoid, evade or manipulate the law, you've led a very sheltered life. Though obviously not in the British Virgin Islands and the like. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that facts, that are proven as right should appear. If this turns out to be a true, it is notable.

My personal view is not relevant, it's what is right or wrong according to Wikipedia. Just like your opinion about my sheltered or non sheltered life is irrelevant or if they are or are not virgins in the British Virgin Islands BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

"What is right or wrong according to Wikipedia" is that we don't make value judgements about the significance or otherwise of events. If the article were a list of such events, then absolutely it would be included. But that is not what it is. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

See how simple it is to give a straight forward answer, without going in to the status of Virgins in the world BumbleBeeBelle (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

You have reverted the edit of Special:Contributions/~2026-28037-25 as unexplained. I do not know his/her reason for Special:Diff/1353342207, but a possible explanation you can find in Talk:Anthropocene#Chronology in the infobox, where I commented (with links to references) the disputed accuracy of the infobox (not only the start time of Anthropocene, but also the presented lower boundary definition) two month ago. Maybe you are the experienced editor who can correct it in a complex way, which would not need an update each year, or you know another experienced editor interested in geochronology and will draw his attention. Thank you. Petr Karel (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Petr Karel: We should not have to guess the logic behind strange edits. By contrast, your explanation is very clear and if you don't get a response to it within a few days, I encourage you to correct the infobox accordingly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

but to answer your specific question, I don't have the skill set it to update automatically. (And maybe that would not be a good idea anyway given that the proposed era, let alone its (calendrical) epoch, has not received approval. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I have, see my reply. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 09:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can anyone see the reason for the

• Cite error: A list-defined reference has a conflicting group attribute "lower-alpha" (see the help page).

at Newport Pagnell? The article doesn't have any evident list-defined references. What am I not seeing? It is going to be something really obvious but I've been trying for too long. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• This took me a minute. The issue turned out to be two EFNs, one which was nested in a ref tag, and then a ref tag which was nested in an EFN. I found Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes to be helpful. Learned something new myself, thanks! ASUKITE 12:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  @ASUKITE: thank you. So there was a good reason for going round in circles! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User talk:John Maynard Friedman and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hey JMF,

I thought I'd entertain you with a story about Module:Calendrical Calculations. Today, I looked at Template:Infobox calendar date today and noticed something weird about the solar terms. For the Chinese calendar, it says "Xiaoman, 10 days until Mangzhong", but for the Japanese calendar it says "Shōman, 11 days until Bōshu". Those numbers shouldn't be different, so at first I thought something is wrong and I'll have to do some debugging. But it turns out it's actually working perfectly. Here's the reason the days are off by one:

The Japanese calendar uses Tokyo as its point of observation, while the Chinese calendar uses Beijing. Mangzhong/Bōshu starts when the sun's aspect reaches 75°. According to NAOJ, that will happen this year on 6 June at 12:48 AM in JST. Since China is an hour behind Japan, it will still be 5 June there. Module:Calendrical Calculations calculates solar aspects and new moons independently of NAOJ, so I was incredibly relieved to see proof that their results perfectly match, and that was seemed at first to be a bug was actually a feature. 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 08:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you were right first time? The top of the infobox says "at UTC+00:00". Does that not mean that the issue should not have arisen because even in Japan that's quite a while before mid-morning? (I'm not sure what you mean by "aspect"? Is it elevation or position in the zodiac?). Is my "quite a while" not "quite" enough?

While I think of it, I considered asking if you fancied adding Julian Day? But it would seriously break the template because it uses only the first word and we would have two Julians. So close the door and tiptoe quietly away, I suggest. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The dates change at UTC yes, but the Japanese calendar section converts the current UTC date to the equivalent date in the Japanese calendar, and the Chinese calendar section coverts the current UTC date to the equivalent date in the Chinese calendar. In the Japanese and Chinese calendars, the months and solar terms depend on which days certain astronomical events (like new moons, or the sun crossing a certain angle) happen on. So if, say, a new moon happened in Japan just after midnight and in China just before midnight, the Japanese and Chinese calendars would be off by a day until the next new moon. And it's the same with solar terms. (This is explained with examples here on the Japanese Wikipedia). So the fact that this is reflected in the template shows how accurate it is, which I'm proud of.

Also, by "aspect" I meant celestial longitude, or the sun's position on the ecliptic. You can also think of it as the angle the earth makes with the sun. Every year, it goes from 0 to 360, then starts again from 0. And I think adding Julian Day to the template is a good idea. It only falls back to using the page title if there right parameters aren't already provided, so as long as we give it the right parameters in Julian calendar and Julian day, it shouldn't break. 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 11:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, I sort of suspected that but thought the such precision would not arise. Maybe you could add a "Restrictions and limitations" section to the doc page?

Re Julian Day v Julian Calendar, the problem is this: For <calendar name>, give first word only. The template as it is coded only uses the first word because the second one is always "calendar", right? Wrong: Common Era. You have to say default_calendar=common, omitting the 'era'. So how do you distinguish between the two Julians? Just declare the second one to be "Julian_Day" as it won't be seen anywhere outside the code (and the doc page of course).

But I think we should definitely do it if poss, just do the work to make it happen. (Easy for me to say, of course!) though maybe if is going to be any more than trivial, it might be wise to check for objections beforehand. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs to be described as a limitation, because it's not a limitation of my code (which is really Dershowitz and Reingold's). It's a known quirk of the Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese calendars, as explained here and here. Also, I'm gonna try adding Julian day to the template 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 06:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I just added Julian day to the template. I'm thinking of adding Rata Die too, but I don't know if it has enough usage to justify that 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 03:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Ordinal date should be another easy addition? I see it already has handcrafted version.

Rata Die looks way too fringe IMO. It is just another one of the many calendar reform ideas that has never gained traction. It would need a lot more RS coverage - serious coverage, not silly season clickbait. Otherwise we just open the floodgates to the many wp:FRINGE fantasies.

If you are looking for a challenge, the Hindu calendars are conspicuously absent from the list, but are there any accepted conversion algorithms? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Rata Die isn't a calendar reform idea, it was just designed to make converting between different calendars as easy as possible. It's actually what Module:Calendrical Calculations uses. As for the Hindu calendars, I tried implementing them but gave up. Calendrical Calculations describes about four different Hindu calendars, but Wikipedia says there are dozens of them, and I couldn't figure out which ones the book was referring to. Also, I just don't find Hinduism very interesting, which is why I decided to prioritise other calendars and do the Hindu calendar the end (if at all) 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 12:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That'll teach me to do more than a quick scan and then think I've got the essence of it. No objection in that case, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)