User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn

Comparable numbers

Please see MOS:NUMNOTES, in particular, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." Thanks, WWGB (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these were a lot greater in distance... like 88 and 6, for example Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Difference does not matter. It must be either 88 and 6, or eighty-eight and six. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those are less comparable, so it depends. i'll do it on a case-by-case basis since there's no set range as defined by MOS Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DESCRIPTOR

Not that I'm looking for a response after you offered to drop the stick, but it needs to be pointed out that WP:DESCRIPTOR also says "In aviation, the terms "accident" and "incident" are defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13, and these standards should be followed in naming aviation related events." Once again, aviation-related topics are explicitly excluded from the notion that "accident" is a non-neutral word. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I maintain that this standard contradicts common sense (and increasingly, most RS, which should take precedent) and should be done away with. It strikes me as a blind adherence to WP:Jargon and does a disservice to readers. But yes, I'm happy to drop the stick. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMERAL

"Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". I have chosen to express these numbers - which are greater than nine - in words. This is the state in which this article passed the harsh scrutiny of FAC. There is no reason to change it except to accord with your personal preference, so I am politely asking you to leave it be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my preference, this is MOS, and inconsistent with how most articles adhere to the MOS. If you insist on adhering to it for some reason and leaving the entry inconsistent with most others, by all means. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia 2024 floods

Please do not remove the International Response we keep returning. Aizeelx (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a flag because "Jakov Milatović sent his condolences and offered to provide assistance." This clutters the page and is useless to readers. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Jacob Arabo

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jacob Arabo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hello, editor, I noticed you recently participated in a discussion of a requested move for the article Brian Thompson (businessman). There is a new discussion open at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman) § Killing of Brian Thompson, and I'd like to invite you to participate. Thank you. Barnt Toust 19:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. guninvalid (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accident vs Crash

I've seen "Accident vs Crash" discussions on almost every new aviation accident and incident talk page for a while now. For the sake of not repeating arguments over and over again, why not try to seek a wider consensus at WT:AATF? - ZLEA _T\^C 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance we've had the debate a handful of times, though the most recent has been the most expansive. I'm not sure WP:AATF overrides wikipedia policy, which demands we follow reliable sources, though I'm open to hear your thoughts on why that's the right forum for the discussion. I'm not interested in forum shopping and my impression is that wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this, even if consensus is not. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe your arguments to be fundamentally flawed, but that's beside the point right now. I think everyone is tired of having the same argument over and over again. It's a waste of everyone's time and gets us nowhere. If you think there is a problem with WP:AATF editors attempting to override policy or wider consensus, you need to bring it up there. If you're not satisfied with the result, then you can try to get the wider community to weigh in by taking it to WT:RS. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that even if you think the WP:RS policy is clear on the matter, the rest of the community might not agree. One of the points of seeking consensus is to determine how policy should be interpreted and correctly applied. As it stands, WP:RS does not explicitly state that articles should prefer the exact wording used by news articles, therefore whether articles should or should not is up for interpretation and should be determined by consensus. I am not aware of any global consensus on the matter, so it might not hurt to just ask at WT:RS before we go through all the trouble over a consensus that might not exist (yet). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. While my argument on this has revealed that I am far from alone, I've been subjected to a needless ANI already and I don't wish to stir the pot simply for the sake of stirring it. That's why I backed away when aviationflightwik reverted edits by myself and a couple other editors after we changed the word to 'crash'. I'll contemplate on what you've suggested. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. If there is already a global consensus on the matter, then this is probably the best way to go. If only a local consensus exists or no consensus at all, then you should either seek to establish a global consensus (which can be hard and time consuming, but has a lot of benefits if it succeeds) or establish/change the local consensus (usually easier and convenient, but is more susceptible to change and may be overridden by future global consensus). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards bringing this to WT:RS. I'll ping you when I do, and I'll give the other discussions plenty of time to conclude before doing so. 23:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can't wait for this cycle to be over. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it's beneath you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not beneath me, it's just been a bit too repetitive. It would be nice to have this discussion once and then be done, but that's not going to happen if we keep repeating it on every new article. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I explained the steps I'll take moving forward. I'll note that the recent discussion prompted the contributions of several previously uninvolved editors who take the position that we prefer crash, so in that regard I believe it was productive. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]