Archives

Feb 2022–May 2024 April 2024-April 2025 April 2025-December 2025

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 20 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

This is MSincccc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Hi MSincccc,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would you please explain your reversion of William, Prince of Wales: Difference between revisions. Though the justification says "The context is clear", every other date in the article contains the year. The one you reverted seems to be the only date in the article that does not contain the year, which is why I added it in my edit, for consistency within the artiicle, one of the prime goals of Wikipedia guidelines. Further, if someone just copies that one sentence, there will be missing information, namely the year. Wikipedia articles are made to make using Wikipedia as easy, correct and complete as possible, for Wikipedia users, and including the year does that. Would you please reconsider your revert. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Truthanado The year is already established earlier in the sentence ("October 2010"), so "16 November" is unambiguous. I hope this explains the reversion. Best, MSincccc (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand that, but why make this date unlike all the others in the article, the only one that doesn't have a year. Truthanado (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The couple became engaged in October 2010 at a remote alpine cabin on Mount Kenya during a 10-day trip to the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy to celebrate William's completion of the RAF helicopter search-and-rescue course.[126] Clarence House announced their engagement on 16 November.[127] William gave his fiancée his mother's engagement ring.[128] The wedding took place at Westminster Abbey on 29 April 2011.[129]

The first sentence mentions 2010. We then move on to the announcement and the fact that the wedding took place in April 2011.

Is there any reason for the reader to assume a year other than 2010 for "16 November", given the context and the references? It also avoids repetition. @Truthanado I look forward to your thoughts. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are three things worth mentioning:

1. Every guideline in Wikipedia encourages consistency. This sentence is the only one in the article that does not contain the year in the date. That's inconsistent, and a violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
2. If a user just reads the sentence "Clarence House announced their engagement on 16 November." they would have no idea when that was. Please note that, just because we might read and understand everything in nearby sentences, not all users do that, so the easier the text reads, the better. It acknowledges human nature.
3. The year in a date can be very important. If someone looks at the 2020 Summer Olympics article, they might think they were held in 2020. They were actually held in 2021, making the year in every date in that article very important.

I refuse to get into edit wars, and I will not here, but I strongly encourage the original edit, with the year added, to be the one in the article. Please, this is the last time I will ask this, consider your revert. Truthanado (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Truthanado I've added back the year in this revision. Let me know if you've any further suggestions. Thanks, MSincccc (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have undone the edit again as it is completely unnecessary. It is right below the other information about when they got engaged. That is the main information people will be reading. It is obvious nobody can miss 2010 there when it is one or two sentences above. The same thing is done at the start of the page for when William was baptised. If there are other areas where the year is pointed out several times, let us know and we can remove them. I do not understand which ones you are referring to though. ItsShandog (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would understand the argument if the date were much further down the page or separated by a lot of text, but it is literally directly below. If someone chooses not to read one sentence above, that's on them, and we shouldn't have to accommodate that. ItsShandog (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dear MSincccc,

First, congratulations on the successful WP:FA on Catherine's fashion! I appreciated your barnstar.

Second, I just realized that Catherine's 45th birthday will be this upcoming January 9. Personally, I believe that having that article as the WP:TFA on that date would be a great "birthday present", not to mention a celebration of your work.

Would you please let me know if you have an opinion on Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales being listed on WP:TFAP on January 9, 2027? As a regular editor of the article, I am consulting you per the WP:TFAR instructions.

Sincerely,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@AndrewPeterT Thanks for reaching out. 9 January is obviously among the dates that I'm looking at.

I'm currently working on the blurb alongside other on-Wiki commitments. I will let you know by this weekend, once I'm done with the blurb. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@AndrewPeterT I have saved an inital version of the blurb in this revision. Best, MSincccc (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed you are a user who has a number of open Good Article nominations and thought you might be interested in Good Article Review Circles. It is an initiative that helps articles get reviewed more quickly through collaborative efforts. By joining, you will review another user's article and get your own GA nomination reviewed in return. Check out the project page for more details! — ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 03:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Since you have already looked at the article, would you consider giving Savannah River Plant a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Savannah River Plant? I have to go to Canada next month and won't be able to access my books, so I would like to be able to close this review if possible. No worries if you can't. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

story · music · places

Another day of two bios in the news section, and Jill Gomez is my favourite, - yesterday's story! Places of 8/8 are particularly bright, matching the Voces8 concert in our little town that day that you would have loved. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt Thanks for the message. I've taken a look. Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joshua Kushner, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello MSinccc, I hope you’re okay. I’m here looking at how you can help take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Idia/archive1 at your spare time. Looking forward, thank you so much. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply