On the spelling of "subgenre" (18 November 2014)
Points to consider
  1. I bet that just about any hyphened word composed of two properly spelled words will not trigger a spell checker. E.g., Firefox is just fine with both "sewage-food" and "swill-Bolshoi", probably for grammatical reasons (using a hyphen as a compound modifier).
  2. Spell checkers have a deliberately limited vocabulary, in order to limit false positives, and "subgenre" may not included in your spell checker's list, leading to a false negative.
Research completed

I checked before I started, and OneLook Dictionary Search gives four results for "sub-genre" (none of which lead to an actual, valid entry) versus twelve for "subgenre", of which:

  • nine lead to entries for that spelling in dictionaries;
  • one is Wikipedia's redirect to the "Genre" article;
  • one is the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary's entry for "sub-" (which only gives the syllabification for the word);
  • one is a 404 error for ODLIS: Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science.

Also, I checked the British side of the Oxford Dictionaries, and still came up with "subgenre" for a search for "sub-genre".

Thus I believe "subgenre" is the correct spelling.

Merger discussion for Swan HillEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing—Swan Hill—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jonathan O'Donnell (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment sought for draft infobox Law Enforcement UnitEdit

Hi DocWatson42, I saw your talk comment on Template:Infobox law enforcement agency (LEA) about the FBI template back in January. I've designed a law enforcement unit infobox User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/doc. Editors have been using for unit articles either Template:Infobox military unit (MU) or (LEA). Help:Infobox and Help:Designing infoboxes - I'm supposed to seek comment, and as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement is inactive, I will have to contact editors directly. Can you please review it - anything you would change/add. It could be used for example on Violent Criminal Apprehension Program instead of using Template:Federal Bureau of Investigation. While the FBI (LEA) would be for the FBI article only. Similar to the use of Template:Infobox national military with units then using MU. There is User:Melbguy05/Infobox law enforcement unit/testcases for testing.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Melbguy05: Thank you for this. I would add a coordinates= field for the headquarters (a pet peeve of mine is the burying of the Coord template at the bottom of the article), and make certain to specify in the documentation that the field is for the headquarters. I've made a small correction to the example(s), per MOS:RANGES. Also, while I'm perfectly fine with the use of "circa" in the Operatives field, note that it is usually used primarily for dates.
More substantially, the Program(s) field should have an alternative expression as "Programme(s)" (I note that you mix the spelling versions—see "Romanised" at the top of the Test 1 example(s)). I'm an American, but the Commonwealth editors will want that spelling option. And it would be more accurate to use "Acronym/Initialism" in the place of "Acronym" ("ICE" versus "FBI").
Sorry about some of that—copyediting is one of my primary editing modes. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing it. I can add a |coordinates= parameter below the |headquarters= parameter similar to Template:Infobox government agency. I hadn't noticed "circa". I quickly copied and pasted information from the GIGN article infobox to use as an example. I can change that to a tilde. The infobox code supports both |programs= and |programmes=. Most infoboxes use |abbreviation=. I did find a few that used |acronym=. I wasn't sure and chose acronym. I can use abbreviation instead. Which one would you recommend?
A difficult title of a parameter to choose was |sub-units=. An example of its use would be an infobox for FBI Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch. The Branch consists of 4 Divisions and 1 Group. |subunit_type_label= is a label so can be customized. Otherwise it defaults to Sub-units. It could have been titled Division if it wasn't for the 1 Group. So in this case Sub-units would be most appropriate. The FBI Branches use other titles for their sub-units including Directorates, Offices and Centre. Another title for the parameter I may have been able to use is |child-units=. Template:Infobox law enforcement agency uses parent agency and child agency as parameter titles. Sub-unit appears in the dictionary whereas child-unit doesn't and isn't a common term like sub-unit.--Melbguy05 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Melbguy05: You're welcome. ^_^ Answering your points in order:
I wouldn't use a tilde, as it is more ambiguous. "Approx." seems to be the best compromise, in part because it is what I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. Make certain that the documentation mentions the spelling option.
"Abbreviation" seems like a good choice, since it avoids the argument over "acronym" versus "initialism".
I would use "subunit" as it avoids the ambiguity over the terminology. Note that "subunit" is the spelling in both American and Commonwealth English (see also here). —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again. I changed acronym to abbreviation. I added |coordinates= for the headquarters. The example I have changed to Approx. I need a better example that uses all the parameters but it will do in the interim. Corrected my subunit typo (I had sub-unit). I thought subunit would be the most suitable. I had looked for similar terms in a few thesaurus.--Melbguy05 (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Melbguy05: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


I liked your (reverted) approach to Bach. Too many too large images, and too many sound files. I'd suggest to drop the sound files altogether, or give them a separate corner. We did that (dropping, place in compositions' articles) for (featured article) Debussy. While I agree that some pics need upright=1.3 (but no more) to make any sense, we should keep the others normal, and think about which actually help understanding his biography. I don't need another conflict with Francis, so propose here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you, though I went with my usual tools (galleries), and chose to leave the sound files alone rather than to venture into unfamiliar territory. Still, I agree—there's too much clutter, especially from the viewpoint of an admittedly very wide monitor window. I would rely much more heavily on Wikimedia Commons as a repository of the sound files, and reduce the size of the images to users' defaults, or 200 pixels if in a gallery. Both Beethoven's article (which I recently edited) and Mozart's (which I just checked for the first time) have a single sound file each, and manage to get by with regularly sized images, and Debussy's article (which I just dropped in on due to your mention) seems fine to me. Though I should state that I am not member of the Wikipedia classical music community/project, whatever that may consist of, but a WikiDee who looks not only at the typos but at the big picture of article layout, again from a very wide view.
Anyway, how do you think I/we should go about this? Post on the JSB talk page to try to build consensus for our proposed changes? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and I yes, I think you should place the info on JSB talk, which is a well watched page. Going from there, you could tackle the others more easily afterwards. I think that the screenshot is convincing. Very generally, I'd think images used in compositions don't also have to be in the biography, - one item of title page, and one of a manuscript sheet of music should be enough. - Perhaps make a suggestion of improvement just for that screenshot section, with another screenshot, about what to drop and what to have smaller - because the article is so long. I know the feeling of seeing massive changes to an article, disliking two of those, and reverting the whole thing because sifting takes too much time. Feel free to make changes to "my" articles, - perhaps check Vespro della Beata Vergine, for Main page appearance on 1 September. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm afraid that due to my amount of real life work, I like won't be able to start the discussion on JSB talk until at least next Wednesday. (I'm also averse to conflict, such as the discussion might bring, so I tend to avoid it.) As for "Vespro della Beata Vergine", I've just made some minor edits. I prefer that the appendices be explicit and clear in their titles, so I would:
  • Change the title of the "Notes" section to "Explanatory notes" (since "Notes" is often used for citations sections).
  • Add a "Citations" subsection header to the "References" section.
  • Make the titles in the "Cited sources" subsection ("Books", etc.) into sub-subsections as per the spirit of MOS:APPENDIX.
  • Change the "Further reading" subsection into a section, again as per MOS:APPENDIX and alphabetize the list to match the rest of the appendices (it's currently in descending chronological order). I've gone ahead and added links to JSTOR to its entries.
DocWatson42 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for good proposals, I'll take some on board. The style of headers is more or less copied from Franz Kafka, my most successful collaboration so far, but I'll think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


In the song Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), the English translation is just a translation, not the title of an official translation into English. Therefore I used sentence case, only capital for Lord, is common usage in the Bible and hymns. I'd do it differently when there is an English version, such "A Mighty Fortress" for Ein feste Burg - not really a translation, because "mighty" is not "firm" (fest) and "fortress" is not "castle" (Burg). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I now understand the why of your rendering, though I differ. I would instead use a prefixed explanation to imply that the translation is unofficial, but still use capital case. E.g., "approximately: 'Sing a New Song unto the Lord'"—. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's just differ then, please. - I would do so perhaps when the thing translated was a title, in italics. But for most German hymns, what we take for a title is just the first line, no italics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Being a minor work, the title wouldn't be in italics anyway. —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Waffle fabricEdit

Sir, I have tried to improve the subject article. Kindly comment. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes, but it looks good. I think you should fill out the references' fields (author, publication date, publisher's location, publisher, ISBN if any, optionally the OCLC (WorldCat) ID number, and the specific page number of the citation (for the first reference, which is missing one)). (See User:DocWatson42/Help for my opinions on references.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing it; I will make the necessary changes. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Sir, It is done as desired. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV: Someone else did some editing, then I did as well. If you have the specific page number for the first reference, that would be good. Otherwise I think we're done, at least with this phase. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Sir, it is done[[1]]. Thanks for the help and guidance. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctionsEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Message received and understood. :-) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for my ornery commentEdit

Hi DocWatson42, your edit at Template:Radical feminism was a reasonable attempt to fix a problem you were encountering in transcluded pages, as you mentioned at my Talk page. You didn't deserve the ornery response in my edit summary when I reverted; I apologize. You were the unfortunate recipient of collateral damage from some MOS:VAR-violating vandalism involving meaningless white-space changes that I've fought on and off in the past. I think the comment about "white space" in your edit summary must have triggered me. A better edit summary on my part might have been this: "That can be achieved better by use of <noinclude> tags," or something like that. Once again: sorry, and I'll try to avoid being triggered by that in the future. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you for the apology. m( _ _ )m [bow emoticon.] Your use of <noinclude></noinclude> tags does seem to have fixed the problem, and is not something I would have thought of—thank you for that, too. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Heather (fabric)Edit

Sir, Greetings of the day! You were there on the subject on 3rd August 2019, I have tried to improve the same page. Kindly see. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: I cleaned it up a bit, but I'm tired right now, and will get back to it in the next few days. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, sure! No problem; please take your time; in the meanwhile, allow me to add some more. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Will Rogers phenomenon - Solution sectionEdit

Hi DocWaton42,

Just saw you had edited out the Solution section on the Will Rogers Phenomenon article. I have undone this edit. I would be interested in understanding the rationale behind the initial removal?

Markstander (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You seem to use work that you have written yourself. This is unwanted per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. The Banner talk 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Markstander: As implied by The Banner's reply, this time I had nothing to do with what I was supposed to had done (whew!). See the history here and here. Mine was merely the edit before yours (in which I performed minor cleanup per MOS:QUOTE and adding spaces and carriage returns to aid in editing), assuming you are also user 2a02:c7f:be99:6e00:495b:2271:a7af:d0e9. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Doc! I'm new to this Wiki thing. Markstander (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Markstander: That's okay. ^_^ (See my page User:DocWatson42/Help for some tips, links, and personal opinions on best practices. Gentle hint: In particular, see the sentences after the first bulleted list.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop...Edit

...changing ereference sections from non-hierarchical headers to hirrarchical ones, as you just did on Zabriskie Point. These edits are disruptive and counter to policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That took me a moment, since I wasn't looking at my notices, but reading your words and looking at Zabriskie Point, rather than Zabriskie Point (film). I prefer clarity in layout, and to be able to see what's in an article at a glance (at the table of contents). Why do you prefer "non-hierarchical headers" to sections/subsections? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help in article expansionsEdit


Since I stumbled upon related sources I initiated an article draft Draft:Irrational beliefs. I am looking for some help in article expansion. Please do visit the draft, and help expand if feel interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: I'm unfamiliar with the topic (I'm a generalist/copy editor/cleaner-up of layout and references), but I performed an edit, a fair bit of which is according to my personal preferences in articles (see "Personal opinions on best practices" at User:DocWatson42/Help). Also in line with that page, I recommend using citation templates for the references (I prefer CS1) and linking as much as possible to the online originals. (I searched for but could not find "Religious Orientation, Religious Behavior, and Dogmatism as Correlates of Irrational Beliefs" online, only citations of it.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't known about Wikipedia:Drafts—thanks!—which I will be using (sometime, when I get around to it, as I have an article in mind that I think needs a total reorganization). —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Thanks for your helpful edit. Usually Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request supports in behind the wall sources well enough when in need. Warm regards Bookku (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@DocWatson42: Since you focus more on copy edit is it okay to make one more request. I have worked reasonably on Draft:Superstitions in Sikh societies, Since I am still working on one related article I do not intend to bring it in article namespace as of now, but please do see if you can help me in first level copy edit of Draft:Superstitions in Sikh societies.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it, though it will likely be in several days. —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bookku: I couldn't help myself, and started, though, again, it will be a while before I can put in substantial work. The last reference is confused, and seems to refer in part to two different journals, and thus needs to be cleaned up. Also, you should pick which date formats and variety of English you want to use, and add the appropriate templates (Template:Use dmy dates/Template:Use mdy dates; Category:Use English templates). —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and if you haven't already, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and apply for access to one or more of its resources. —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Help me!Edit

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Greetings and felicitations. Within the last couple of days I enabled the "show short description option", but I already have the short description helper enabled (causing two short descriptions to be displayed), and the option does not display the description in the mobile version. I'd like to turn it off, but I can no longer find it. Where is it, please? —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

DocWatson42, at the very bottom of your gadget settings there should be a "Show page description beneath the page title" entry; disable that and you should be good. Note that it seems to only appear on Vector, so you'll have to go to the desktop version if you're on mobile. (Took me a bit to figure that out, as I'm not even using Vector right now!) Perryprog (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert of revertEdit

Hi - just a small note, I reverted your revert at {{Wikipedia:JSTOR/Userbox}} since the addition seems to create a spacing problem when the userbox is placed within a table. Aside from the coding issue, I'd agree with the earlier removal of the short description that it is unnecessary in this case... regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)