User talk:DocWatson42

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.

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society

Dear DocWatson42,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thank you. ^_^ I accept.

Short description

Hi Doc Watson42, is it standard to put a person birth year in parentheses in the short description for the article? I just took this out of another article so wondering if I am undoing a standard. Whizz40 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It certainly seems accepted. I was the subject of a comment in recent years from a member of the front page's "Recent deaths" squad, that I would be along shortly to add the birth and death years to a biographical article, but I can't find that edit. Also, I find them in numerous biographical articles, and either add the death year, or sometimes just change the hyphen to an en dash.

I wound up at Wikipedia talk:Short description and its talk page's archive, specifically this discussion. Which lead me to Wikipedia:Short description#Inclusion of dates. (I favor using years (when known) over centuries, though the guideline doesn't mention the latter.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. I'll undo my change. Whizz40 (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hanging bowl and doubtless many others

As others have said above at greater length, please STOP imposing your personal style preferences, with no policy backing, on others, as you did here. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"The Adventures of Sajo and her Beaver People" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Adventures of Sajo and her Beaver People has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5 § The Adventures of Sajo and her Beaver People until a consensus is reached. Dsiedler (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of publisher information

Why did you remove publisher information from some of the citation templates in this edit? – Reidgreg (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Including it for periodicals is unnecessary and non-standard. See, for instance, The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Ed., sections 14.165 (pp. 828–829 of the hardcover), and 14.191 (pp. 838–839 of the hardcover). —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia: Manual of Style? Publishers can change over time and I thought any information that can help with verification was important. I've had other editors demand publisher information in reviews. Do you have anything besides external standards to base this removal of valuable information? – Reidgreg (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

But was the publisher information they were concerned with for periodicals? None of the examples in Template:Cite news include publishers, and indeed the instruction regarding the publisher= field is "Not normally used for periodicals." Wikipedia:Citing sources#Newspaper articles also does require a publisher. —DocWatson42 (talk) DocWatson42 (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

But what harm does it do to include the publisher? How is it an improvement to remove the information? WP:V is policy, and anything that makes verification easier is a good thing, correct? Even with periodicals where the publisher doesn't change, knowing the publisher can help me find the right access point off of the Wikipedia Library so that I don't have to go searching for it. I just don't see how this improves the article: how the 'normal' practice trumps ease of verification. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You can also use the location of the paper to find the correct one, which I find is often faster than using the publisher. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Anchors

I saw your edits to Opel Kadett, but that is not what the Anchor page says. It reads:

In general, if the intended target of an anchor is a section title, then it should be placed at the end of the section header by substitution:
== Section header{{subst:anchor|Anchor name}} ==

I have never done it that way before either and I think a better solution needs working out, but I guess it's time to start following that policy until a better method is contrived. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I did not understand the use of "subst:anchor" before (I just played with it in my sandbox), so I've just been moving the templates. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Anime News Network

Hi DocWatson42. Thanks for your edits in various anime and manga articles. I have a small question regarding Anime News Network. When citing this site, I personally tend to include it filling the 'website' parameter instead of the 'publisher' parameter, but I noticed that you usually change that doing the opposite. Not that I am opposed to this, I'm okay with either option, but I wanted to know if there is any reason why it should be done this way. Cheers. Xexerss (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to reply.

The field |website= renders the text in italic type, as it is an alias for |work=. If the title of the Wikipedia article for the entity in question is not italicized, I feel that it should not be italicized in references (see MOS:ITALICWEBCITE). If there is no article, then I prefer to err on the side of roman type. The ANN article's title is in roman type, so I change the names of the fields. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Bath School disaster

In this edit you changed:

• all the "url-status=usurped" to "url-status=dead". This is really not-good. If 'dead' is left in the article, then the original "daggy" url is left accessible to unwary readers. "Usurped" leaves the old address inaccessible to anyone which is needed in this case. The daggy website address - at least in the past - was usurped by a bad actor/probable scammer. I will not dare to check it again. Usurped is the safe & proper parameter.

Please see my Support re-direct comment in the article's talk page Archive 2 at Talk:Bath School disaster/Archive 2#Proposed merge of Bath Consolidated School into Bath School disaster where I state: WARNING: DO NOT CHECK OUT or CLICK ON or RESTORE THE ELLSWORTH REFS LINKS

• all the previous "efn" code was changed to "Efn". Why? Usage at Template:Efn indicates "efn" as being correct.

I am intending to revert these particular changes unless you object according to policy/guidelines/etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Have reverted the Daggy cites back to "usurped". Have opened a discussion at article talk but am happy to discuss my particular edit that changed 'dead' back to 'usurped' here if you wish. 14:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

And. Your 'efn' to 'Efn' changes... Would like some clarification on that if you don't mind. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to reply.

• I was changing the "url-status=usurped" to "url-status=dead" in the same way I change "url-status=bot:unknown" to "url-status=dead" because that is what is acceptable to eliminate the automated error codes at the top the articles [edit: in editing preview mode]—the ones that are apparently of the same sort as (I'm paraphrasing) "too many instances of xxx" and "Archived ___ as title". I agree that the URLs are usurped, but there is no indication in the articles or errors that they should remain that way. I also am less wary of the old URLs, and was until now the definition of "daggy", though I think you mean it in a different sense than given in Wiktionary—perhaps one of the senses given in Urban Dictionary? (It's not a term I've encountered before in my American English.) Since your post here, I've stopped changing them, but IMHO a more permanent solution should be found, one that eliminates the error messages.
• I change the first letter of templates from lower to upper purely for aesthetic reasons. There is no functional difference. I also regard the lower case in templates as being slightly lazy—made by editors who don't go to the trouble/bother of pressing the "Shift" key.

—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that the solution may be to remove the error notice for "url-status=usurped" in edit preview mode if an archive-url= field is also used in the same reference. That would removed the reason to change the URL status. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hello? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't get a notice about your June 14th reply until today.

A couple of things... "Daggy" in this case refers to the actual usurped website. Mr. Daggy used to be *the* source for information about the Bath School disaster (and his info was always scrupulously sourced) but his old website has been usurped by a scammy/phishing entity - that's where the refs from the Ellsworth book resided. The old URL needs to not be accessible in any way for unwary readers. "Dead" isn't correct, because daggydotcom still exists and people shouldn't go there. Mr. Daggy is possibly deceased or infirm and his version of the website is never coming back. Honestly? While it's annoying for editors I really don't care about the "error notice" - that is something that editors see but not our usual consumers, casual Wikipedia readers. This article receives occasional intense interest, sadly usually when there is yet another school or mass shooting and I think the reading experience - with its possible associated verification experience - should be a safe one for our customers.

The cite/Cite is a purely aesthetic choice and like you said it' your personal preference - those of us who use "cite" are not being somehow "lazy". "cite" is just what WP/the html uses when an editor utilizes the automatic cite templates available within the article editing window. It's your business but seems to me you're basically cleaning up something that doesn't need fixing. There's so much else around here that's a mess... Since it is purely a choice and not some WP rule etc that I am unaware of, I intend to bring the article into agreement with "cite". I hope that's ok with you. - Shearonink (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

IPhone 15 Pro vandalism

Thanks for this vandalism cleanup! I was confused by the edit summary, though...as far as I know I haven't touched the color codes in this article, and I don't know anything about iPhone colors. Technically, I doubt the seven-digit "BAB4A20" is valid; normally HTML colors are six digits. It also looks like that's associated with white titanium but "BAB4A9" (which is what this code was before the vandalism) is associated with natural titanium, so perhaps these have been swapped? I'm not sure which is supposed to be with which, but I'd guess the off-white one is natural. The vandal also changed the Bluetooth version number, not sure that's trustworthy unless it's sourced somewhere. -- Beland (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm sorry—I got confused, and mixed up your edit with this one, which preceded yours. DocWatson42 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Image you cut from WP article

I just noticed that, a month and a half ago, you reverted the .jpg image file I labeled "Portion of 1973 ad displayed with Model Products Corporation model kit instructions," which I'd uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for placement in WP's Minivan article, where I'd set it in the Etymology section. I'd inserted that image because, on reflection, I'd thought it a useful early example of "minivan" from long before the term was a commonplace, or even generally recognized. That is, it was not mere clutter, nor do I find that it violates anything in MOS:ACCIM unless under a broad interpretation. So, I find your deletion of it presumptuous, all the more as it's now irrecoverable, not just on Wikimedia but, I think, to me too. (Seldom do I have the chance to review my WP Talk page every seven days.) Note that WP's Minivan article had no other early advertising images representing the term then and has none now.

Come to that, I doubt that any actual production minivan (as against a model) had ever been commercially advertised under that name by then; that is, I doubt the term was in commercial, as against enthusiast, use, at least in any context intended for the consumer. Still, if you knew of and had substituted any such labeled image (that is, of a real minivan, so called) for the one you'd taken out, then I shouldn't complain, but you didn't.

On WP every cut must be judicious. Your record of posting literally thousands of WP edits every few months, even every few weeks, leaves you suspect in that regard, for it indicates that you edit in haste on this platform and therefore must be imprudent. The bluegrass flat-picker whose name you've taken on was noted for his grace, finesse, and subtlety; one can only hope your work doesn't match his merely in being carried out blindly.

It's easy to redact information from WP articles, but it can be much harder to insert them. Just accurately composing this single edit has cost me far over an hour's time. So did everything involved in finding, preparing, and posting that minivan image, including meeting WP's demands to prove that it was a fair use of an old copyrighted text. Mucketymuck (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove the image—I moved it to the top of the article. The image was deleted by consensus (in which I did not participate and was unaware of until now) as an "Unused non-free media file". I referred to MOS:ACCIM because at the I moved it the image was "hanging into" the following section.

Just because I edit a lot does not make me imprudent. I am experienced, and while I do make a lot of edits, many of those edit are of sorts that I have made many times before (cleaning up MOS:ORDER, moving images, and cleaning up image placement, references, and typos). You haven't watched me edit—some of those edits are easy and quick (generally the ones I mark "minor"), while others take time, of which I spend a lot of on Wikipedia—so you can't actually know how much effort I put into them. As for my user name, it's from the Sherlock Holmes character (and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), not the musician (who I was entirely unaware of until the last few years, when someone else made the same mistake you did).

Given the number of times my edits have been reverted by heavy-handed editors (one in particular) who were changing one item out of several changes I had made in a single edit, I'm quite aware of how easy it is make bad alterations. I'm sorry that it took so long for you to compose your post to me, but I wish you had taken a bit more [edit: time] to research what I had actually done. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I’d checked the Minivan article’s history, but it was hard for me to interpret. Do you mean you moved the image to the top of the article’s Etymology section?

Besides, that image file wasn’t “unused” till deleted from that article. I’d put it to use on WP as soon as I’d uploaded it to WM Commons.

Btw, I’m surprised that any WP editor, such as those you mention, would revert an entire set of edits on the basis of a single point. Obviously, they ought to revert that item alone. Mucketymuck (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I move the image to the top of the (whole) article. Click on the first link and page down to see the article as it was then.

Perhaps as better categorization would have been (though I don't know if that type exists) "Used non-free media file". Per the record of the deletion (at the second linked page above) it was user Explicit who deleted the image.

I agree, but it's often easier to undo and ignore the consequences for the remainder of the edit(s), rather than take the time make a smaller, possibly more detailed, edit. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit: This may help with deciphering the history pages: Help:Menu/Tracking changes—DocWatson42 (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I’d forgetten that one can scroll down a “Difference between revisions” page to see an article displayed as it existed at the time.

But, so far as I can discern, it was not editor Explicit but CZmarlin who removed that minivan ad image, in their second May 17 edit of the Minivan page. And I find no record that it was ever featured at the top of the page; rather, it was moved to the Predecessors section, and later deleted. Mucketymuck (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry—I got confused about which image we are discussing. I moved File:2019 Chrysler Pacifica Touring L, front 7.4.19.jpg to the top of the article, and File:Portion of 1973 ad displayed with Model Products Corporation model kit instructions.jpg to a gallery in the "Predecessors" section. CZmarlin removed the latter from the article, but Explicit deleted the image itself. DocWatson42 (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's odd. I thought the image was automatically deleted from WM Commons after a week's time as unused, since its redaction from the sole WP article where it had appeared meant it was no longer in use on any WM project. Mucketymuck (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if automatic deletion from Wikimedia Commons is a thing—you'd have to ask there. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mucketymuck: It isn't a thing, except for non-free files, copyright violations and similar - but they get deleted whether they're in use or not (see c:Commons:Deletion policy). Commons has no requirement that images actually be used, merely that they "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", plus certain other restrictions (see c:Commons:Project scope). So long as images fall within that policy, they remain indefinitely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.

Anyhow, I realize I’m belaboring the point, but that image, the earliest advertising use I’ve seen of the term “mini van” (later a single word), might interest a scholar. As I now recall, it was an ad for a real car, not a model, though it appeared in a model kit. I remembered it, looked through pics I’d taken till I found it, was glad I’d kept a copy, trimmed it down with editing tools, and jumped through the necessary hoops, attesting to its fair use, to upload it to WM Commons.

I doubted I’d ever again go to that trouble just to post an image to WP, and I haven’t done so since. Life is short.

And I kind of doubt it would have been deleted from the WP Minivan page had it remained nestled more or less in the Etymology section, where it had been displayed for well over a year when it was moved. Mucketymuck (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Didn't you save a copy of the edited image? And I'm sympathetic, but a year isn't that long in the lifespan of an article—"Minivan" is eighteen years old, and the general expectation is that articles will be edited, some frequently. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mucketymuck: You mention "fair use"; there are two situations here.

• Images uploaded to English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use need to actually be used in an article (see WP:NFCCP#7) and the file description page must also have a specific non-free use rationale for each individual article that it's used in (WP:NFCCP#10c). Fair use images may be removed without warning from those articles which don't have a valid non-free use rationale; and fair use images which are not used in any articles may be deleted after seven days of non-use per WP:CSD#F5.
• Commons does not accept fair use images, this is explicitly set out at c:Commons:Fair use; they are speedy deletable under c:COM:CSD#F2 and this is actioned immediately an admin notices, there is no grace period.

Which situation are we discussing here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Casco Bay article reorganization

Hi DocWatson42,

Casoulman here -- I've been building out the history of the Casco Bay page, and saw your reorganization that elevated the history section I've been working on ahead of the geography and topography section. Wanted to check if that's standard for Wikipedia in your experience -- I had figured the geography was the more important section for today's readers as defining the bay's location etc. Let me know your thoughts, thanks! If the section is to stay below the history section, then would require some extra work to move the Wikipedia links to first references for towns etc cited in the geography and topology section ... Casoulman (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved it because in my experience that's standard, though I don't have reference to fall back upon, and my experience is mostly with municipalities and larger political entities (counties and states/provinces), not geographical/geological features. Whatever you decide, IMHO the Etymology section should stay first. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DATE and recent edits

Hey Doc, I know you're a very experienced editor however I was confused by this edit where you changed the date in the reference from the American standard. My understanding was that it was generally accepted to use the date format that is consistent with the balance of the article, which in part is at least biased towards the standard of where the subject is located. Most references appear to be in the "American" standard of MMM DD, YYYY. Which makes your correction confusing. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding WP:DATE. Thanks TiggerJay (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)