Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan

message: The image :File:Gilbert facing right.jpg should not be used in this project's banner template,  as shown at the top of this page, because it's a flipped image – note the breast pocket and button holes on the wrong side. I realize that it neatly corresponds to Sullivan's image on the right, but that aesthetic consideration cannot allow such a fake image to be used. I suggest the banner doesn't need any images, but if they're wanted, :File:Photo of W. S. Gilbert.jpg might do for a left/right arrangement, or both images could be replaced with :File:Gilbert & Sullivan.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, I hate the last image that MB linked.  What do you think, user:Tim riley?  What's wrong with a flipped image, anyhow?  Is there a guideline against it?  MB, please note that the major contributors left on this project are me and Tim riley, but his page says he is on a wikibreak, so we ought to wait for him to return. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a flipped image is appalling. It is a visual lie, a falsification, and against everything Wikipedia should stand for (and on the whole does); it should not appear on any page, whether an article or a project page. Well, you did ask! Tim riley talk 20:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

text: The current images are good and there is no need to change them. If it was in article it might be worth debating whether flipping an image is bad, but such debate is pointless for a project banner template. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "", and : "". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A guideline for articles is not mandatory for a wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that (although the MOS carries more weight than an average guideline). I just wasn't sure whether it was a deliberate decision to put a reversed image into the project's banner in 2009; after all, that means it's widely seen. Whether it stays or not is no skin of my nose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot remember how this reversed image was chosen.  User:Tim riley, what solution/changes, if any, would you suggest?  Do you like the first image suggested above by MB?  Also, User:Johnuniq, thanks, but I will be happy to go with any reasonable solution that meets with Tim's approval, since I trust his judgment on this; I thought this image met with his approval for the past 11 years, since he never complained about it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not been a regular visitor to this page, and have not clocked the reverse image until it came up just now. I'd settle for the WSG image suggested by Michael Bednarek. Tim riley talk 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, Tim or MB, would you please substitute the image in the two templates on the Project page?  I have no idea how to do that. Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I created Template:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/sandbox with the suggested image. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuck.  The old image is so much brighter and nicer.  But I don't see much on the internet of Gilbert facing to the right.  Obviously he preferred his left profile.  Sigh. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Project banner image

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that.  Thanks for letting us know! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments 

message: If nobody objects I’d like to change this to “WP G&S follows the same guidance found at its parent project WP opera” with a relevant link. The current wording is a weak appeal to a (non-)authority that doesn’t even say what it claims. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I object.  Our [current guidance] is better, except that now that the opera project changed its guidance, we should remove the clause about that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who actually works on these articles, I also object for the excellent reasons stated by Ssilvers above. Jack1956 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Concurring in objection. I-boxes are excellent for articles on e.g. politicians, sports stars, clergy etc where career stats can be summarised, but would be useless clutter here. It is disheartening when a single editor bustles in claiming to know better than all the people who have actually worked on the articles. Tim riley talk 08:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes because working on G&S has so much to do with being an expert on infoboxes. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What a curious position to take. It's more about having the subject expertise to see where the failings of IBs don't help the reader - which should be the key driver in all we do. The original proposition is also based on a fallacy: there is no claim to authority, just a statement of what the current project practice is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To me “making up your own rules” is no different from “claiming authority”, even if you call it “established best practice based on project consensus”. The village pump makes new policies and guidelines, nobody else should because Wikipedia isn’t the Balkans. Dronebogus (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what a rather curious statement. And one not based in reality either. There is no "making up your own rules" or "claiming authority". You're also wrong on the village pump being the only place to make us policies and guidelines. In fact, the only point you are correct on is that Wikipedia isn't the Balkans (neither is it Ouagadougou, Wagga Wagga or Outer Mongolia, but I have no idea what that has to do with anything. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I know one place where polices and guidelines aren’t supposed to be made, which is WikiProjects. Dronebogus (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one is saying they are, but your ability to misconstrue the worst position from any situation and then make a storm in a teacup never ceases to amaze. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this isn’t going to convince you et al of anything, but maybe this will make it easier to understand why I find these weird anti-infobox pockets so annoying. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What a waste of time, but if you wish to write pages that do nothing more than parrot existing policies and guidelines, then that's entirely up to you. The question over your obsession with IBs is entirely separate from how some editors on WP approach the question of their use and the very real concerns they have over their use. The questioning of their universal use goes much wider than individual projects, as can be seen from the recent attempts at the village pump to try and force them onto all biographies. That rejection is the consensus of WP at the moment, and maybe something you should take on board and mull over - although I doubt you will take what I am sure will be such an exhausting route for you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here’s how I see it: the community rejected the universal rule because it sounds bad in abstract. But when given a concrete example like most RfCs the community almost always chooses an infobox Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was rejected because it was a bad idea that the community did not want. Most people are unwilling to get dragged into the IB debate, having seen the constant pushing and disruption drag on for too many years. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox section