|
User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2021/November
What I suggest you do is to write a draft lead for the article on concubinage in a sandbox along the lines you suggested but with a difference in the ordering and with some other modifications:
- gives overview of concubinage (reflection section "Overview")
- summarises "In Asia" particularly China and Hindu India
- summarises "Ancient Near East", "In Judaism" and "In Islam and the Arab world" and Muslim India and Muslim Africa
- summarises "In Europe" and "In the Americas", this is where we can mention the Latin roots of the word
- summarises new concepts of concubinage - e.g. some modern European governments defining gay concubinage in the same way that they have defined gay marriage, and some activists want a man or woman to be able to marry his/her dog/horse/cat.
Even though it is a summary, every point should be cited.
Once you have something that you think is right, then put it up for discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: thanks for the suggestion and the above format looks good. However, MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 4 paragraphs, so can we merge two of those paragraphs?VR talk 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- The article has about 55,000 characters excluding spaces (65,6000 including spaces). If pasted into Word, it is 21 pages long. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests (as a general guideline, not an absolute rule):
- Fewer than 15,000 characters: 1/2 paragraphs
- 15,000–30,000 characters: 2/3 paragraphs
- More than 30,000 characters: 3/4 paragraphs
- I added (5) to the suggested structure because I suspect that G probably has a valid point. (5) ought to be the shortest of the paragraphs - maybe 1-2 sentences only.
- Once you have a good draft lead, I am sure people will want to propose changes. Maybe the sentences of (5) will end up as the end sentences of (4), I do not know.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Vice regent, thanks for closing this RM discussion. I've now actioned your technical move request. If I can ask a favour, the next time you close an RM discussion requiring a move where the articles move in a chain (e.g. 1->2->3) just list both moves at WP:RMTR instead of doing one yourself; the pagemover can then complete the first move in the chain without leaving a redirect and it's a lot easier all round. If you do have to complete the first move for some reason, please don't retarget the redirect afterward as a pagemover can move a page over the top of a redirect with only one edit. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Jack Frost and sorry about that. I think this would be a good time for me to learn how page movers do what they do. From what I understand anyone can move a page to a target to a page that is a single revision redirect (even a non page mover). I was under the impression that non page movers can move pages to multi-revision redirect, but from your comment it seems this is not the case? So then do you do Wikipedia:Page mover#delete-redirect to do so (meaning you delete the target and then move the page to the target)? I appreciate any explanation as I'd really like to understand how this works and become a page mover myself.VR talk 09:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- No worries; it was meant to be a gentle request, not a telling off! To answer your question, any autoconfirmed editor can move a page to a single revision redirect which directs to the same title as the page they're moving (the destination page is automatically deleted) and they will automatically leave a redirect behind when they move a page. Whereas a pagemover can move a page to a single revision redirect which directs anywhere (by ticking a box when doing the move to delete the destination page) and can also choose not to leave a redirect behind (by ticking another box when doing the move) in line with certain criteria.
For example with this pagemove I would have been able to either (1) move Kapil Sharma → Kapil Sharma (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect, then move Kapil Sharma (comedian) → Kapil Sharma or (2) after you moved Kapil Sharma → Kapil Sharma (disambiguation), I could have ticked the box when moving Kapil Sharma (comedian) to delete the single revision redirect at Kapil Sharma. As soon as there's more than one revision only an administrator is able to complete a direct move.
The ability not to leave a redirect behind is a useful one, as it means you can do things like round-robin moves, which is what I had to do here to move Kapil Sharma (comedian) → Kapil Sharma because I couldn't just delete one or the other of the pages. In practice this means I move the destination page (here, Kapil Sharma) out of the way without leaving a redirect behind. I then move the source page to the destination title (Kapil Sharma (comedian) → Kapil Sharma), again without leaving a redirect. I then move the original destination page from wherever I sent it to the original source page title. Effectively, I've swapped the two pages. I can do this manually if I really wanted to, but it's far easier to use one of the userscripts which are made for pagemovers. I'm not sure if I've just confused things, so please don't hesitate to ask any more questions! Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Frost: thanks, this really helps! VR talk 21:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Vice regent: I see you close the vote which I respect, as the consensus is what it is, unfortunately nobody who previously favoured a move came along. I just wanted to clarify in your text, "TataofTata is right that this is the Turkish name for the offensive" I think that's what you meant? I don't dispute that Turkey's operation name is not that, but the article should be properly titled as being a Turkish offensive as per various sources on this topic.--TataofTata (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hey @TataofTata:, thanks for seeking clarification here. I realize this was a contentious debate and I do think you had a valid point that the current name represents Turkish POV, but there seems to be ample precedent for having a name "Operation X" when it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Did I understand your question correctly? Please feel free to seek any clarification. VR talk 13:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, yes I meant that (I think) there is a typo in the closing edit, specifically what I quoted above. As you've said "operation" rather as my position that the current title is the turkish name of the offensive. If that made sense? "TataofTata is right that this is the Turkish name for the operation" I thought you meant "TataofTata is right that this is the Turkish name for the offensive"? I could be wrong, sorry if I am. --TataofTata (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- I did not mean that your view is that its an operation. I meant that the article says that the subject is a "military operation" (see first sentence of article lead) and that TataofTata believes this is the Turkish name for it. If I asked you "what is the article subject?" I think we can all agree that it is a military operation, right? If you want, I can change where I wrote "operation" with "military operation"?VR talk 13:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
On 12 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alchemiya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the streaming service Alchemiya has been dubbed the "Muslim Netflix"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alchemiya. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alchemiya), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Some diffs you posted on an article talk page did not work on my browser.
- 23:52, November 12, 2021
- 00:09, November 13, 2021
Because you gave the time and date for each I was able to find the first one on the history for the two page and see how the URL differed from the one you posted and test if that modification made the second one work, which it did.
- 23:52, November 12, 2021
- 00:09, November 13, 2021
Do your original diffs work on your browser?-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The first one indeed doesn't work (weird, how did it get it?) but the second one does work in my browser.VR talk 04:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello VR. How are you? Can you introduce me some sources on the subject of the "global arrogance", other than this one? Ghazaalch (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. I'm well, how are you?
- What exactly do you mean by "global arrogance"? How would you define it? VR talk 21:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Crusading movement creates a topic by extracting aspects out of reliable sources that are not simply war events, but about women, theology, etc. It's not done so often by reliable sources, but that does not mean that the content is not verifiable or has undue weight: the content is covered by sources broadly on the subject Crusades, not on a separate topic. It breaks no WP rule. This was the conclusion of the last RfC: the subject itself does not have to be verifiable. It does make it more difficult to find a proper name and Borsoka makes use of that. He also argues that it's not natural. He has the right to his opinions, but it's the current organization and he needs to present a concrete problem in terms of specific content. If your goal is to bring the discussion at that level, then I congratulate you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes my proposal is to make sure we're talking about the same thing and that can only happen when people start describing things. So instead of just saying "institutions" they could say "institutions, by which I mean taxes, prayer, decrees etc".VR talk 19:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I do not want to start a parallel discussion here. I haven't said it explicitly above, but I wanted to make a link with the notion of undue weight that we met elsewhere. It's different for Crusading movement, because it's all covered under the broad subject Crusades in some sources (not in all of them). However, Dr. G. might have a different perspective when he considers Crusades because he sees this subject in a classical manner and thus for him Women, Finance, etc, are just like terrorism was for Islam in Finland. This parallel would not have been appropriate in the Crusades' talk page. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Dominic Mayers: Yes, I agree that is a discussion of WP:WEIGHT. As you already know, I'm of the view that weight needs to be judged broadly. So when the time comes, I'd recommend sources that cover Crusades broadly and then see how much weight do they give to women, finance, etc. If the weight is too small then these are articles are best relegated to the "See also" section and the Crusades template.VR talk 20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but the situation is not as simple as Islam in Finland. Crusades covered in a classical manner is a valid topic, so one can apply WP:weight just as I totally agree with you that it should be applied, but the subject is Crusades covered in a classical manner. There is nothing wrong in deciding that this is the subject. What you suggest is still fine, but this might be a case where there is no exactly centred sources or little. I am not sure, but let us assume the case where there is no centred sources, only sources that cover broadly the subject, but also more than the subject. This is fine if we consider that the subject of an article does not need to be verifiable, that is, it's fine to take aspects of reliable sources to create a topic. I suspect this is the case for Crusading movement and maybe also for Crusades, at the least to some degree. This is why I said that we cannot take the organization in books as a model to replicate. The point is that you must adapt how you use the sources that are broadly on the subject to this situation, because otherwise it would be the same as requiring that subject are verifiable: we would not be allowed to create a topic by selecting aspects in reliable sources. But Wikipedia is not the same medium as a collection of books and I oppose any lack of flexibility that is not fundamentally necessary. I don't know how often this kind of situations occur. The relation between Evolution and Creationism is not a case, because Evolution has exactly centred sources. (I was mistaken when I used it as an example.) Well, I wonder if Islam in Finland is not a case to some degree. How much of the sources you have seen are exactly centred on Islam in Finland. Let's assume there was only sources on Finland or on Islam and we create the topic by selecting the Islam aspect in the sources on Finland and the Finland aspect in the sources on Islam. Would that violate a WP rule? I don't think so. Yet, you would not use WP:weight to require that we include all content about Finland in respect of their weight in the sources used. Instead, you will only consider the content in sources that match the subject Islam in Finland in such a way that, say, Islam in Canada is not included or Catholicism in Finland is not included. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- If the concern is to avoid some POV bias, which is the whole point of WP:weight, then it should be possible to see more clearly this bias by looking at concrete content. This is exactly why I keep asking that we consider concrete content. Currently, I have no idea what is the POV issue. Not mixing an event based approach with a different approach is not a POV in itself. It's just like you or someone said in Islam in Finland, the goal is not to hide information, but only to better organize it. With the disambiguation tags at the top, I really do not see any hiding of information here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- So the question was lets suppose we didn't have any book or article whose title matched something like "Islam in Finland" and we only had sources that were on (i) Finland and mentioned Islam or were on (ii) Islam and mentioned Finland. So how would we determine weight? That's a good question. But ultimately I'd apply the same principle. I think it would still be possible to isolate the content (i) and (ii) in their respective sources and then consider the weight given to each aspect of Islam in Finland.VR talk 10:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Just wanted to say that the principle needs to be applied correctly in view of the subject, which means that one must first isolate the content about the subject. It's in that context that I say "Crusades (in a classical MILHIST perspective being implicit)" is a valid subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies: thanks! VR talk 16:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for your message; I have upgraded the rating but do not have anything to help with getting a GA rating.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks.VR talk 16:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 Hello! Your submission of Dreams of Trespass at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello VR. Do you have time to take a look at this and write your comments for me? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Not totally convinced with the photo switch on concubinage. The Dorowhatshisname image with the cart is really evocative, dated and clearly from a Gulf state, as you can see from the traditional masks the women are wearing. The new photo just has a date range and no clear location, though I also get a sort of Iran/Persian Gulf vibe from it. The lack of a definitive date is really uninformative though. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of date bugged me too. Let me see if I can hunt that down. The reason I switched it is because of the masks. You can't really see women and they're all clumped together. The first thing you notice is the men, not the women. The one I put is focused on the women themselves.VR talk 13:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think its Antoin Sevruguin. And according to this source, his photographs were less fantasy and more documentary, which I think is a good idea. Still trying to hunt down the date.VR talk 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the first photograph was not fantasy either - no reason to suggest otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean the first photo was a fantasy. It obviously wasn't. I just meant that some of the paintings we've seen are obvious fantasies intended for the 'male gaze'. My only beef with that image is that it didn't focus on the women and the women were so covered that you can't even see their faces. This is the third free photo I've found on harem, so now we have three choices.VR talk 14:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
|
