Jump to content

User:Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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).


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.

[edit]

List templates

[edit]

Projects

[edit]

Transwiki

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

Discussion tracking

[edit]
Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board
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:Gol Maal

Which of the following film posters should be used in the infobox for Gol Maal?

Please indicate your first choice and second choice in the Survey with an optional brief statement. The Discussion section is provided for discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game reviews

Can we add Slant Magazine to Template:Video game reviews? I'm starting this because responses appear to have stopped on the discussion up to now. Please see posts under the titles, "Adding a publication" and "Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025" above this for context. Helper201 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis (band)

What should be the lead image in the infobox? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)


RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force

* American Airlines Flight 5342 (IATA name)

    • Consistency with sources including the NTSB, NY Times, and Washington Post
    • Brand recognition of American
  • American Eagle Flight 5342 (Branded name)
    • Ticketing and passenger experience
  • PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (ICAO name)
    • Operational and legal accuracy

The same question applies to the recent Delta accident:

  • Delta Air Lines Flight 4819
  • Delta Connection Flight 4819
  • Endeavor Air Flight 4819

All follow the style of <airline> Flight <flight-number> as described in the [conventions section]

Should the flight number be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name? Zaptain United (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) {{rfcquote|text= We need to change the naming convention for elections in communist states. The naming convention, in many ways, does not make sense: the elections, in North Korea, for example, are called 1959 North Korean parliamentary by-election. Does North Korea have a parliamentary system? No, it has a supreme state organ of power that holds the unified powers of the state. And North Korea is not the exception, but the norm. The communist state election model was formed in opposition to parliamentary, the fusion of powers, and the separation of powers. In the communist bloc, and in present-day China and North Korea, the term traditionally used is "Election of deputies to the" organ in question, that is, "election of deputies to the National People's Congress" and the "election of deputies to the Supreme People's Assembly". However, in the case of China, this title is problematic: the election process begins at the grassroots and ends with the provincial and other provincial-level people's congresses electing members to the National People's Congress. The entire election process begins at the bottom and goes from each level until it reaches the supreme state organ of power, that is, the National People's Congress.

A more correct, and less controversial title often used is legislative election, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election. But again, that might make it seem like the election process was identical in the US as in the Soviet Union: it was not. I, here, also propose using the formal term used by the communist states themselves: 1984 Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union or 1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet.

I have several proposals:
  1. At the very least, we need to STOP describing communist state elections as parliamentary. The communist states had supreme state organs of power that held the unified powers of the state and monopolised legislative power; that is, let's use the term' legislative' in the article title, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election.
  2. Take the most radical and correct route. Make clear that communist state elections were different from once in liberal democracies and used different terminology. Follow the WP naming convention, but use terminology used by these states themselves: "1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet" or, for example, "2018-19 Chinese Election of Deputies"
  3. Be exceptionally bold, and create a new naming convention for communist state elections: "Election of Deputies to the 11th Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union" (instead of "1984 Soviet Union legislative election"), "Election of Deputies to the 1st People's Chamber of East Germany (instead of 1950 East German general election), and "Election of Deputies to the 14th Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea" (instead of 2019 North Korean parliamentary election)
  4. Status quo, but use the name of the overall body where applicable, 1984 Soviet of Nations election. (option left by guninvalid (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

How the biographic infobox birthplace of people born on the territory of Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia during 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 annexation by the Soviet Union should be displayed? e.g. Artūras Barysas; Born 10 May 1954;

Please briefly explain your decision. Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

How should the names of tornado articles be handled going forward, especially around the use of the year and the existing convention WP:NCWWW? Departure– (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) be revised with regard to the naming conventions for state routes in Kansas and Michigan so that the parenthetical disambiguators "(Kansas highway)" and "(Michigan highway)" are only used when disambiguation is necessary, or another format entirely is used instead? Mdewman6 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history

Should text at MOS:MILUNITNAME that advises all unit names include a parenthetical qualifier even when no other unit covered on Wikipedia uses that name be deleted for conflicting with article title policy? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

So, within the Bailiwick of Guernsey there are 2 Fort Doyles: the Fort Doyle in Guernsey, and Draft:Fort Doyle (Alderney) on Alderney, and Wikidata has them as both the same and different.

why must it be this way?

[3] (guernsey one on German Wikipedia)

[4] (Alderney one linked to the guernsey one’s page on English Wikipedia and has info for the Guernsey one) PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 01:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

May editors revert edits that add commas or remove existing commas from articles written in British English on MOS:ENGVAR grounds? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)


RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions be:

A – Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and confirmed as a community-wide naming convention guideline?
B – Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and made a supplemental information page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), commonly known as 'NCPLACE'?
C – Kept at its current title and marked as a Wikiproject advice page?
D – Marked historical as unneeded, unenforced or lacking consensus?
If C or D are adopted, the following guidance at WP:NCPLACE#Belgium would be removed: The Brussels naming conventions should be used for articles related to Brussels.
If C or D are adopted, a discussion would be opened to determine the status of the Brusselsname talk page template. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

It has been over a year since the temporary criterion WP:X3 was enacted. At present, it looks as though the backlog of titles which this criterion applies have now been deleted. (Further details in the following comment.) At this point, should we make this criterion "Obsolete", promote this criterion to a permanent criterion (would be "R5"), do nothing to the criterion at the present time, or take some other action? Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms

This page was tagged as a sitewide {{guideline}} after an RFC in 2013. The RFC was not a WP:PROPOSAL for guideline status; instead, it was about a dispute over a CFD. A couple of participants in the RFC casually referred to this page as a "guideline", and on the basis of their comments, the page was later tagged as a {{Guideline}} instead of as a {{WikiProject advice page}}.

The WP:PROJPAGE guideline says: Some important site-wide topical guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and Wikipedia:Notability (books), originally began as advice pages written by WikiProjects. However, after being adopted by the community, they are no longer WikiProject advice pages and have the same status as any other guideline. When this happens, the WikiProject's participants cede any notion of control over the page, and everyone in the community participates equally in further development of the guidelines. Such pages move out from under their original "Wikipedia:WikiProject Something/" path.

I therefore propose that editors choose one of two options:

  1. Mark this page as a {{WikiProject advice page}}, and leave it at the present page title, or
  2. Leave this page marked as a {{guideline}}, and move the page to a title that does not refer to WikiProject Ireland.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."

Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models

Should this proposal be accepted as a guideline? (Please consider reading the FAQ above before commenting.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox tennis biography

At an RFC in 2019, there was overwhelming support to remove |residence= from {{Infobox person}} and from {{Infobox sportsperson}}.

In 2024, at a second RFC that decision was affirmed and overwhelming agreed to for a second time.

Given that {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox sportsperson}} both had this parameter removed, should {{Infobox tennis biography}} do the same.

For the record and for full disclosure, I initially went ahead and removed it as I felt that the 2 RFCs made it clear that this change was to be made. That removal was objected to fiercely by another editor who felt I had overstepped. I have reverted my change and here we are.

A few arguments
  • Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
  • The "residence" is almost never sourced and is not really relevant to the player's biography
  • To quote one editor at the previous RFC, "Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker".

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Should T5 be updated to include the following language:

  • This applies to any and all unused subtemplates of a template that has been merged as a result of WP:TFD

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should the community harmonize the rules that govern community-designated contentious topics (which are general sanctions authorized by the community) with WP:CTOP? If so, how? 19:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

The introductory language of Deletion Review includes DRV Purpose point 3, which states:

Deletion Review may be used … if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;

Should DRV Purpose point 3 be:

  • A. Deleted as not necessary or inconsistent with current practice?
  • B. Retained as is?
  • C Rewritten with alternate language? Please provide the proposed language.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

With the implementation of Module:Person date, all |birth_date= and |death_date= values in Infoboxes (except for deities and fictional characters) are now parsed and age automatically calculated when possible.

With this implementation, it was found that there are a large number of cases (currently 4441) where the birth/death date is set to Unk, Unknown, ? or ##?? (such as 19??). Full disclosure, Module:Person date was created by me and because of an issue early on I added a number of instances of |death_date=Unknown in articles a few weeks ago. (I had not yet been informed about the MOS I link to below, that's my bad).

Per MOS:INFOBOX: If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined..

There is also the essay WP:UNKNOWN which says, in short, Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know.

So the question is what to do about these values? Currently Module:Person date is simply tracking them and placing those pages in Category:Pages with invalid birth or death dates (4,441). It has been growing by the minute since I added that tracking. Now I am NOT proposing that this sort of tracking be done for every parameter in every infobox... There are plenty of cases of |some_param=Unknown, but with this module we have a unique opportunity to address one of them.

I tried to find a good case where the |death_date= truly is Unknown, but all the cases I could think of use |disappeared_date= instead. (See Amelia Earhart for example).

The way I see it there are a few options
  • Option A - Essentially do nothing. Keep the tracking category but make no actual changes to the pages.
  • Option B - Implement a {{preview warning}} that would say This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. (Obviously open to suggestions on better language).
  • Option C - Take B one step further and actually suppress the value. Display a preview warning that says This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. It will not be displayed when saved. then display nothing on the page. In other words treat |death_date=Unknown the same as |death_date=. (Again open to suggestions on better language for the preview warning).
  • Option D - Some other solution, please explain.

Thanks in advance! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process. Support 1 or more of the following:

  1. Process is working well, no changes needed
  2. There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
  3. There should be fewer signatures needed
  4. There should be more signatures needed
  5. 30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
  6. 30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
  7. Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
  8. Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
  9. Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
  10. Recall should be abolished
  11. Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall

When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP

Which option should be used to fix the technical limitations that will prevent us from expanding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP)?

RSP currently lists about 500 sources, with a growth rate of about 50 new entries per year. With the current format, the page has reached the WP:PEIS template limits. Only templates within the limits are displayed; templates (and their contents) past that point on the page are not displayed. We need to restructure RSP to reduce the PEIS problem and accommodate more entries.

Editors have identified three main approaches to solving this problem. We are calling these three options "One giant table", "List of subpages", and "Row-building module". All options have advantages and disadvantages. Before we invest more hours in developing the options, we want to know which option is most appealing to the community. 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.

In recent years, the slogan parameter has been removed from {{Infobox bus company}}, {{Infobox airline}} and the widely used {{Infobox company}} (see the MANY discussions about removing it from Infobox company).

Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)

Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:

Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?

In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory}} or {{Infobox ambulance company}}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.

Look forward to everyone's thoughts! - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)

The WP:GEOLAND guideline states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard is not fit for purpose"? FOARP (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Should there be a recommended limit on a talk page size? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep

Should a "Wait and See" option be added to the Articles for Deletion guidelines, to be used as needed for breaking news? -- Beland (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Should DYK prohibit or restrict superlative hooks, such as those that revolve around a "first X" hook fact?

  • Option 1 - Ban all superlative hooks
  • Option 2 - Restrict superlative hooks to certain "airtight" cases, where established lists of subject members exist (for example, list of all US presidents)
  • Option 3 - Only allow superlative hooks to be approved on a case-by-case basis after a WT:DYK discussion
  • Option 4 - Status quo (bringing superlative hooks to WT:DYK is optional but encouraged, not mandatory, hooks do not need a WT:DYK discussion to be approved by a reviewer)

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

User sub-pages

[edit]

User talk sub-pages

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ned_Scott&oldid=1307929475"