User talk:QuietHere/Archives/2024/February
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:QuietHere. 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. |
Britain and its constituent parts
Don't assume people are a particular nationality just because of the place of birth. That's particularly relevant in the UK, where many will describe themselves as either British or one of their constituent nations - and there's no rhyme or reason as to that choice. Unless the subject has made a definitive statement on the point, just leave the status quo as it is. It's not something you can pigeonhole people with, so all those categories you've changed are now probably wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SchroCat I didn't assume it based on their place of birth. As I said, the one source that actually references their nationality says "English", not "British". It doesn't matter how the subject self-describes (assuming they actually do self-describe as such, which I haven't seen), it matters how the sources describe them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, it’s not necessarily the sources. I’ll point you to Note A of the MOS on biographies:
There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality by which they identify.
- Tldr: Don’t guess based on an ignorance of the subject, and go back and undo all the arbitrary (and probably incorrect) changes you’ve made over the last couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- "editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject" is exactly what I did, and "consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality by which they identify" doesn't apply if you haven't provided any sources showing the subject self-identifying. None of my changes were remotely arbitrary; they've all followed the same rules you're quoting. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- ”particularly UK reliable sources”. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe you checked. Which source describes Snakehips Johnson as English? Gelato is more likely to think of himself as British, given he has an American parent (and one with no nationality listed), which is more common with duo-nationality parents. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a source where Gelato says that, or are you just assuming that given his parentage? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I left a notice on Gelato's talk page since this primarily regards his page, and I will also be leaving a notice at WT:ENGLAND since I can't imagine this discussion being settled between just the two of us. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a source where Gelato says that, or are you just assuming that given his parentage? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- ”particularly UK reliable sources”. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe you checked. Which source describes Snakehips Johnson as English? Gelato is more likely to think of himself as British, given he has an American parent (and one with no nationality listed), which is more common with duo-nationality parents. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- "editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject" is exactly what I did, and "consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality by which they identify" doesn't apply if you haven't provided any sources showing the subject self-identifying. None of my changes were remotely arbitrary; they've all followed the same rules you're quoting. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Tldr: Don’t guess based on an ignorance of the subject, and go back and undo all the arbitrary (and probably incorrect) changes you’ve made over the last couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024 GAN backlog drive
| Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi QuietHere, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the rcat you added to this category redirect, as the docs for {{R from alternative spelling}} say that it shouldn't be used on soft redirects.
All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 22:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @A smart kitten where in the documentation are you seeing that? I can only see it saying "Use this rcat template in any namespace." QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the third banner from the top (or fourth, if you include the one saying
This is a documentation subpage
) in the documentation - "This template should not be...used to tag soft redirects". WP:REDCAT § When to categorize a redirect also says that soft-redirects shouldn't be tagged with rcats, with the exception (for categories) of {{R category with possibilities}}. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 07:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the third banner from the top (or fourth, if you include the one saying