Archives

2016 2017 Awards Bots Drama Fun Old

Hello! Your submission of Falcon 9 booster B1029 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The article has one broken link that needs to be addressed, I believe; other than that, this article is good to go. Michael Barera (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help me with something that's been bugging me. In this edit of mine, I'm not 100% confident in the word "column" there. Look at that link and see if you think another word would be more accurate. Things like "feature" and "section" have crossed my mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Column sounds good to me: some people still read paper! — JFG ^talk 13:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you´re right [1], though I see it as something of the Mar-a-Lago of his pop-culture. Can I have your opinion on somehing related? Today I noticed Template:Trump family, changed "descendents" to children (that and "ascendents" sounds a little pretentious to me), but then I noticed that son-in-law and uncle don´t really fit either way (potential tasteless jokes aside). Any thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for your comments. I saw your change from "descendants" to "children" and I think it's better. Jared Kushner used to be listed as spouse of Ivanka Trump, not as son-in-law of Donald Trump, I think it made more sense that way – would you agree? Trump's notable uncle and sister fit rather well with parents and other ancestors, but we could tweak the section title from "Ascendants and siblings" to "Ancestors and relatives" (will do). There is also a duplicate link to "Ancestry", as an earlier article was merged, I'll remove that. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, got a flashback to old discussions at Swedish royal family. Anyway, Jared is good, and "Ancestors" is better than "ascendents". To me it still sounds a little pretentious, but it´s shorter than "Parents, grandparents and relatives", and somewhat motivated by the inclusion of Trump family. Other US presidents don´t seem to have this particular template, am I right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: for previous presidents, their family is included in their overall navbox. However, Trump's navbox was already yuuuge before he started his campaign, so that it was split into {{Trump businesses}}, {{Trump family}}, {{Trump media}} and {{Trump presidency}}. Now the {{Donald Trump}} navbox also includes the family and I feel it should not be duplicated. It's hard to decide what should be included in there. My personal suggestion would be to use {{Trump presidency}} as the main navbox. Ideas? — JFG ^talk 07:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One navbox to rule them all. It´s not crystal-clear to me what´s "best" here, though logically {{Donald Trump}} should be best for Donald Trump. Personally, I´d like a (collapsed) everything-and-the-kitchen-sink navbox under the current one, but of course, such a nav-box would be... well, you know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:pretentious, we could say "Parents and relatives" instead of "Ancestors and relatives". — JFG ^talk 07:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, tried an edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Now you made me curious about Swedish royal family! Why are the current King and Queen only named "The King" and "The Queen" in the family tree? Is this some protocol tradition? That looks quite pompous and uninformative to readers; I would suggest "King Carl XVI Gustaf" and "Queen Silvia" but I don't want to disturb the peace if there's indeed consensus for the shorter designations. Just being curious…— JFG ^talk 07:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really can´t say. SergeWoodzing, an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where they are listed. Most formallly, in Swedish, they are given as the King or the Queen without names, just as the Queen is in Britain etc etc etc . In lists less formal and/or lists that feasibly should be more informative, I would add their names. We are here to inform, after all, not to adhere to the strictest formalities in every instance. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — JFG ^talk 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this edit summary isn't a correct justification. If we were talking about the company Forbes, "its" would be correct in American English (not in British English though); however, in this case we are talking about The World's Billionaires, which is compiled by a team of reporters and, therefore, a collective "their" is appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: So you're saying I was either right for the wrong reason or for the wrong WP:ENGVAR… Thanks for the note! — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my comment was pretty redundant but I thought it was worth it in the interests of completeness. Or it may be just because I'm an asshole grammar Nazi. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		For your amazing and ongoing work managing the content at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches‎, well done. Good god man, how do you not have a space barnstar yet? Let's fix this travesty right now. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Blush), you made me proud, CleverPhrase! Upwards! — JFG ^talk 10:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have closed the practice about the requested move of Lega Nord. But cannot a request be extended beyond two weeks if there isn't an agreement? Because in that discussion 5 users are favorable and 5 users against (Some of them even using arguments that have been denied)...--Wololoo (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wololoo: The discussion had already been extended by one week and attracted only one new comment. Discussants offered valid arguments both ways, and I saw no trend towards an emerging consensus. I would suggest a 6-month pause before trying again. — JFG ^talk 14:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not all users offered valid arguments, in particular an affirmation that was clearly denied (the academic texts), for this reason I think the discussion, vitiated by questionable statements and with the same number of users pro and again the move, can not be terminated.... :( --Wololoo (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recourse is WP:Move review; not sure it would support your stance, though you're free to try. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok --Wololoo (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition for "child" in Webster includes: an immature or irresponsible person ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]