User talk:Grapple X/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Grapple X, I really just wanted to thank you, for the barnstar and the extremely helpful input. (Not sure this is the right place... hope I'm not breaching etiquette.) Also, I'm wondering if it might be a good idea for me to write a couple of paragraphs outlining my reasoning on the terminology, to put... on my user page I guess? Is that a thing? Hope you're having a lovely Friday! Persicifolia (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a breach of anything, always happy to get talk page messages. Having a quiet day in the office and about to head home for Halloween weekend here in Ireland. As to your user page, I think the editors responsible for the MOS:DISAB guideline probably put it best; the relevant section there says The phrases confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair-bound should be avoided as they frame the disability and the assistive device in a negative light. [...] Users tend to regard their wheelchairs as instruments of liberation, not confinement. They would literally be confined if they did not use wheelchairs. Essentially the "confined" and "bound" verbiage, and words in a similar light, carry an intrinsic negative connotation, like a cell or a cage, instead of seeing it as a means to convey oneself. I can't swim, but I doubt anyone would insist that I am "confined" to a boat, nor that Jonnie Peacock et al are "confined" to prostheses. It's one of those wordings that we gain nothing from keeping—it's a bit of an aside but I'm also in favour of gender-neutral language and while I disagree with terms like "actress" or "comedienne", there is at least the narrow case where someone can tell gender at a glance with them, there is some grounds for practicality there, but in these cases you don't have that, the "bound" terminology offers nothing informative that isn't conveyed by wording centred on "user/using" language. That's my two pence on it anyway. Hope you're getting to grips with Wikipedia well enough so far. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I hear Halloween is quite a thing in Ireland. My kids will be home any moment, we're very much looking forward to Halloween too, which is going to make it impossible to keep up with this this evening - I already lost two edits over on that other page! Yes you're probably right - there are other nuances but I suspect they won't be of interest to anyone really determined to carry on with the 'bound' thing. Wheelchairs seem to hold a real horror for many non-disabled people, as a symbol of something, and using one oneself is a very different experience. The words 'bound' and 'confined' very much reflect that non-disabled perspective I think. Wikipedia is an utterly fascinating place, I am so glad it exists but wonder if I'm made of stern enough stuff! Persicifolia (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You've definitely jumped into the deep end—not a bad thing for sure but getting into policy/manual of style debates is probably one of the more frustrating things you can come up against, so don't let it dissuade you even if it doesn't turn out well now. There's a march of progress with these things and although I already posted a few style guides to highlight it, more and more bodies will inevitably follow suit, if this isn't enough today, there'll be a time when, say, the Associated Press or major dictionaries, etc, include it as standard too. There is no deadline, after all. Enjoy the weekend with the kids, though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This was just what I needed to hear, you are absolutely right, thank you. I did jump into the deep end - without really meaning to. I've read through the history of some incremental changes made here, articles like the one originally called 'Tulsa race riots' (I think), and of course progress is generally slow and steady. And I made a lot of edits on this, with only two reversions so far which is really heartening. And no pushback on the Laurence Olivier, Harper Lee or Morrissey articles! Anyway, your message, fish and chips, very loud small daughters and things calming down here did the trick. Persicifolia (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything happens by inches here. I do think though that the weight of sources is good right now, I hadn't realised until today for example that the AP Stylebook reflected this, and that's a big bellwether for writing styles. Unfortunately I'm fish-and-chipless here but I can't win them all. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope you've had a lovely Halloween weekend, we have - in real life anyway. I think the discussions over this are perhaps affecting me more than I realised though. This is not theoretical for me as you know, and the point at which I got the word 'lame' pejoratively applied to me for the first time in my disabled life is probably the point at which I should have exited. You've been doing sterling work. But there does seem to be, just as you predicted, a determination to dig heels in over this, which given only one of my 100+ edits was ever reverted is frustrating. It's perhaps a very loud minority, but I don't think many wheelchair users will be able to stomach the tenor of the discussion, me included. The presumption that it is the 'other' being discussed, that we are not in the room as our bodies are being discussed, is overwhelming. Persicifolia (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's been affecting you but also not surprised. Other conventions took a lot of wrangling to reach the right conclusion, for example the current guidelines at MOS:DEADNAME took a lot of thrashing out and still to this day see needless pushback in places. It'll get there, and having high-quality sources like the AP Stylebook to refer to should make it an inevitability. Please don't feel like you need to endure any kind of insult though; WP:NPA is your friend here and civility policies are not optional. I'm glad you had a good Halloween though; for me, the football results made it more trick than treat but between pumpkins and a few bags of leftover Swizzels I should be fit to indulge for a while. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It's fish and chips night over here, which I think means this has been going on for at least a week. I keep wanting to (metaphorically) throw you orange slices - or whatever it is they do to sustain thirsty marathon runners (I am not up with sport). Hope all's well over there. Persicifolia (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Orange slices will forever remind me of the joke about a young lad called up to play first-team football for the first time; when the manager tells him he's starting the game but he'll be pulled off at half time he says "it's nice of you to offer, but a slice of orange is enough". But a week unfortunately is nothing in wikipedia-time—things move slowly, which can have its ups and downs, in that not being on all the time won't leave anyone in the dust because things have suddenly changed overnight but it also means that things that should have happened yesterday are still in the future. Still, I hope your first few weeks of being here haven't been all disheartening. There are always projects to look at and work on, especially if you want a break from behind-the-scenes policy stuff too. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's all about you! Is your username actually named after this operation, or is it just a coincidence?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It me! Yes, the username is taken from the bomb test; I also set up this redirect for it. I chuckled when I saw it again. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, very nice. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

On 16 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Arquette donated his earnings from his appearances in World Championship Wrestling to the families of dead and injured wrestlers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Ronnie Rocket has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to improve this, it's hugely appreciated. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Grapple X! The article you nominated, Laborintus II (album), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Laborintus II (album). Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grapple. I saw you've written a number of DYK / GA-class articles and was wondering if I could get some advice? I submitted a few articles to WP:AFC last year and, while most of them were accepted, there's still two I've having trouble with. Draft:International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi) and Draft:National Wrestling Conference have both been rejected due to WP:ESSAY but I don't understand how these articles violate this policy. I've already removed a lot of content from the articles but none of the reviewers have told me what specifically needs to be cut. When I added more newspaper and print sources as suggested by User:Sdrqaz, another reviewer declined the article for "adding more details". If this were a GA-class article what info would need to be cut from these articles? Thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Having a look at Draft:International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi), the first thing I'd look at is the list of alumni and the full title histories; these could, with expansion, be their own articles, and don't need to be presented in full here. Consider taking the alumnus list down to a single prose paragraph mentioning the most noteworthy names for now; the title histories on similar pages tend to just show the last champion of each as well. After that, I'd recommend cutting out anything which is sourced only to Facebook, and trimming or removing the large block quotes—quotes are good and I definitely prefer seeing them instead of non-free pictures, but there is a heavy use of them here which could be scaled back a little. I don't think the overall prose is too long though, but you'll probably find that by focussing less on social media sources like Facebook that it will naturally shrink as some things aren't able to be replaced with reliable sources (WP:PW/RS should point you to some other places to look for reliable replacements though). It's a very interesting subject, though, always interested in more tales of the territory heyday. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

On 11 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First circle of hell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dante "may have detested everything about Arabs and Muslims", but placed Saladin, Avicenna, and Averroes among the virtuous in the first circle of hell? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First circle of hell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, First circle of hell), 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.

 MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  01:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

On 14 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Second circle of hell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the punishment of sinners in the second circle of hell (pictured) is an example of contrapasso? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Second circle of hell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Second circle of hell), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,026 views (918.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback re this article, I have actioned all the points you raised, could I just ask you to have a quick look to see that I did the alt texts for the articles correctly? I'm not entirely confident with stuff relating to images...

Boynamedsue (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, not sure how to add alt text to the picture from the book of Aneirin at the top of the page... --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Those in the images look fine. As for the infobox, I had a look at the template and it seems for some reason there's no field to enter alt text, which infoboxes usually have. That's a strange one but I wouldn't be confident in playing around with the template code to add that capacity. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it that then. Thanks once again for the feedback. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Grapple X, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Have a lovely time yourself, and thank you for all your contributions this year. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Have a wonderful time and a happy new year to yourself. 12:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

No fancy images just a thank you for starting the wheelchair RfC even though it didn't close appropriately it made me think about something I never thought of before it will change my language and perspective. A few people I asked outside Wikipedia "Would you prefer in a wheelchair, wheelchair user or wheelchair bound, they all say user. It's clearly a stereotype while acceptable for individuals to hold, not in written text that has no named author. Oh well, maybe the best thing is a best practice essay and link to it when making changes. -- GreenC 21:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Belated seasons greetings to you too. I share the frustration but hopefully it's a case of slowly, slowly catchy monkey and we get to the right place in the end. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First circle of hell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The article First circle of hell you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:First circle of hell for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The article David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second circle of hell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FormalDude -- FormalDude (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Second circle of hell you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Second circle of hell for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FormalDude -- FormalDude (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)