User talk:Nemov/Archives/2023/May

CTOP notice

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I got one of these back in October. I'm well aware. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I happened to see the discussion on the idea lab. I think that "recommended if there is information that could be put in an infobox beyond what is found in the article's first paragraph" is needlessly vague. In almost all biographies I know, that will be so, because places of birth and death are not in said paragraph, because our MoS doesn't want them there, - they are often ot even in the lead. We could as well write "For biographies, and infobox is generally recommended" instead, and let those who don't want infoboxes specify what they think should be exceptions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So you think this is better:

For biography articles, infoboxes are recommended. The purpose of the infobox in these contexts is not to replace the lede or to re-summarize it, but to augment it.

I keep going back and forth on this one. Nemov (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization proposal

If you haven't done so yet please review my proposal to end the capitalization battle at WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again. If you have an opinion on the matter please leave it at the link provided. Deadman137 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

BLP

FYI: On Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, the differences. I though you might be inexperienced, and first thought was just to strike out guidelines, since you were misstating WP:BLP as something lesser than policy. I did notify you so that you could fix and unstrike (and take out my comment on your misstep). I see you rather took out BLP, and now my comment is out of place. You have might right to delete the subsequent comments and/or change back to BLP; and policy. I just want to debate you and others based on the facts. If you don't fix and edit (however you meant), then I'm forced to add an edit to my comment. I'm ok with it all fixed and silently gone, edited out by you and also from this page. And thanks for the link to the other RfC, it seems intriguing, also name withheld there... comp.arch (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish. Nemov (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)