User:Ned Scott

I'm not that active these days, but I'm still around. Feel free to send me an extra poke here or via e-mail for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
E-mail: Special:Emailuser/Ned Scott

I live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.

Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.

Useful links

List templates

Projects

Transwiki

Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki- An effort to help with the technical issues when reusing Wikipedia content.

User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.

Template:Export

Discussion tracking

Delsort

Delsort categories

RfC/General notice

XfDs

Other

Village pump sections
Policy post \| watch \| search To discuss existing and proposed policies	Technical post \| watch \| search To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports use MediaZilla	Proposals (persistent) post \| watch \| search To discuss new proposals that are not policy related. See also: perennial proposals.	Assistance post \| watch \| search To post requests for assistance not covered by the Help desk or the Reference desk	Miscellaneous post \| watch \| search To post messages that do not fit into any other category

RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth

What should the threshold for inclusion be?

Option A WP:Verifiability in primary sources (i.e. the works of fiction themselves)
Option B Verifiability in secondary/tertiary sources
Option C WP:Notability (corresponding to WP:CSC #1)

TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

What is the reliability of Al-Manar?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Deprecate

- Amigao (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Which of the following describes the reliability of Check Your Fact?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies

Should this self-published image File:Slave Labour ahead of 2022 FIFA World Cup.jpg be displayed in this article? إيان (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions

We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Talk:Berbers

Should the Infobox include Arabic with the ethnic languages, or follow examples like Assyrian people and Copts that exclude it? TahaKahi (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

For any proposed article title determined by the application of WP:CRITERIA the proposed title should nonetheless comply with WP:TITLEFORMAT (ie WP:TITLEFORMAT has primacy over WP:CRITERIA). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

I am revisiting an issue that was last brought up 6 years ago here and settled without a strong consensus.

I think we should avoid using Indian numbering conventions unless it is needed for context. For instance, if we want to list the box office take of an Indian movie, don't use "crore", use "millions". This isn't about disrespecting a culture, it's about using internationally favored notation and unit conventions. We should use "millions" instead of "crore" for the same reason we favor meters over feet. There is no reason that India-related articles should be an enclave of Indian conventions. People who are not Indian will struggle with these things, it will weaken Wikipedia's role as an information tool for everyone.

This is not the same thing as currency. It is appropriate to list an Indian movie's box office take in rupees. Providing a US$ conversion is optional, but a good idea since the US dollar is widely used around the world as a reserve currency. But write it as "millions of rupees", not "crores of rupees". Kurzon (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Short description

I have asked this question multiple times and have received no complete consensus to change WP:SDNONE to apply article names such as History of Nottinghamshire and Watersheds of Illinois. When this is resolved, please update WP:SDNONE to comply with this ruling. This RfC is necessary since there are thousands of articles where this applies where there is no consensus for use of WP:SDNONE. Additionally, the guideline is extremely short and vague for something that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles.

Potential options:

Yes, articles on subnational entities and municipalities in the title should have "none as a short description"
Only for cities and subnational entities that an "average reader would know" (which I have seen brought up in the past) should have "none" as a short description (most readers know about Delhi, Texas, and Moscow, not so much Kilgore, Texas, and Ncojane) (This has been brought up in the past by Remsense)
No, none of these apply for WP:SDNONE (a format will have to be provided for what should be recommended in the new guideline)

Thanks! -1ctinus📝🗨 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Should the words "or ~~~~~ (just the time and date)" be removed from statement 5 of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC?

RFCBefore Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Should MOS:LEADIMAGE include a subsection for selecting lead images in biographical articles (if there is more than one image of the subject)? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?

The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons.

An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row.

A: No sticky header, same style (2-line) header as before.
B: Full size (2-line) header with sticky enabled.
C: Narrow (1-line) header without sticky enabled.
D: Narrow header with sticky header that follows you around.
E: Same as D, but with padding at the top of each row.

Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Should T5 be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion for templates and modules? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

For any proposed article title determined by the application of WP:CRITERIA the proposed title should nonetheless comply with WP:TITLEFORMAT (ie WP:TITLEFORMAT has primacy over WP:CRITERIA). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Short description

I have asked this question multiple times and have received no complete consensus to change WP:SDNONE to apply article names such as History of Nottinghamshire and Watersheds of Illinois. When this is resolved, please update WP:SDNONE to comply with this ruling. This RfC is necessary since there are thousands of articles where this applies where there is no consensus for use of WP:SDNONE. Additionally, the guideline is extremely short and vague for something that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles.

Potential options:

Yes, articles on subnational entities and municipalities in the title should have "none as a short description"
Only for cities and subnational entities that an "average reader would know" (which I have seen brought up in the past) should have "none" as a short description (most readers know about Delhi, Texas, and Moscow, not so much Kilgore, Texas, and Ncojane) (This has been brought up in the past by Remsense)
No, none of these apply for WP:SDNONE (a format will have to be provided for what should be recommended in the new guideline)

Thanks! -1ctinus📝🗨 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies

Should this self-published image File:Slave Labour ahead of 2022 FIFA World Cup.jpg be displayed in this article? إيان (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature

Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS? Previous discussions as per Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE. [1][2]. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

In Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used for restoration of adminship apply to:

Option 1: Only those former administrators desysopped for inactivity
Option 2: All former administrators

Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Should the following text -- or text to the same basic effect -- be added to Petition section, at the end of the main text, right before the field to start a new page (or elsewhere):

As with any petition, all that is wanted is signatures. Any editor may and should remove any material found on a petition page except for the nomination and signatures. Any exceptions should be discussed and agreed to on the talk page first.

Yes or no? Suggestions of changes to the text are of course invited. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

To anyone unfamiliar with this, admin recall is a new process that is exactly what it sounds like. Currently, there is a 30 day petition period: if 25 people sign it, the admin then needs to pass a new RfA within 30 days to keep the tools. Should we change the petition period?

Option A: Keep the petition period the same (30 days)
Option B: Change the petition period to 7 days
Option C: Some other time period (like 14 or 15 days?) that's longer than a week but shorter than a month.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate

RFCBEFORE. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

User sub-pages

User talk sub-pages