Login
Login

Talk:White nationalism#rfctag

{{Talk header}}

{{controversial}}

{{trolling}}

{{Annual readership}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 5

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:White nationalism/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Europe|importance=mid}}

}}

should Notable organizations that were governments be highlighted in bold text

should the text in section "Notable organizations" to be highlighted as bold of its significance among the other entries as governments just as parliamentary representation is highlighted here by italic text, this was the long term consensus until User:Mitch Ames changed it Gooduserdude (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevant edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=1154520676][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=1155755605][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=1155851018]. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  • No. MOS:BOLD MOS:NOBOLD is clear on this: "Avoid using boldface for emphasis ... use ... {{tl|em}} ...". Note also that "... {{tl|strong}} [which usually renders as boldface] ... is generally not appropriate in article text".{{pb}}I don't even think {{tl|em}}/italics is the right approach here. It would probably be better to separate those entries into separate lists, eg, "(former) governments", "(former) parliamentary representation", "other". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:: that MOS:BOLD only applies for article text not lists Gooduserdude (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:::changed to strong then Gooduserdude (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::::My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=1155912174 initial comment] incorrectly referred to MOS:BOLD, but it should have been MOS:NOBOLD, which has the text I quoted.

::::Per my initial comment, NOBOLD is equally clear on not using {{tag|strong|o}}or {{tlx|strong}}.

::::In the absence of specific advice to the contrary, I think bulleted lists in an article are still part of "article text" - they are in article space. Is there something in MOS that says lists are not bound by MOS:TEXT?

::::I repeat my previous suggestion, that it would be better to split the list into three. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::please make a draft proposal how that would look like at User:Gooduserdude/sandbox Gooduserdude (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  • No part of MOS:BOLD says that it does not apply to lists. At any rate, I've tried a slightly different tact that hopefully solves the issue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:i prefer the original version Gooduserdude (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: should Notable organizations that were governments be highlighted in bold text?

should Notable organizations that were governments be highlighted in bold text as bold of its significance among the other entries as governments just as parliamentary representation is highlighted here by italic text? Gooduserdude (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:it looks better and was the long term consensus version Gooduserdude (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::"Looked better" is purely subjective. People's opinions differ on what is "better", which is why we have MOS. "Was the long term consensus version" - Silence is the weakest form of consensus and "evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  • No It goes against MOS:BOLD. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_nationalism&diff=1155991332&oldid=1155979841] for my attempt at a different solution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • {{Comment}} @Gooduserdude should withdraw the RfC for failure to follow WP:RFCBEFORE, which requires "a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC". The thread above on this exact topic was posted less than 24 hours ago, which is not enough time to establish if there is consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • :You have a valid point re WP:RFCBEFORE, but given that we already have three (other) responses (in this section) I propose that it would be better to let the RfC continue, rather than further complicating things. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • ::Fair enough. This could probably be closed as SNOW anyways. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • No, per MOS:BOLD. And other organizations shouldn't be italicized, since it's not a sanctioned used of italics by SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • No, per MOS:NOBOLD. CaptainEek's solution looks sensible. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • No - summarising my earlier comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=1155912174][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_nationalism&diff=next&oldid=1155918847], MOS:NOBOLD clearly states "Avoid using boldface for emphasis ... use ... {{tl|em}} ... The {{tag|strong|o}} ({{tlx|strong}}) markup [which usually renders as boldface] ... is generally not appropriate in article text". There is nothing in MOS to suggest that lists are exempt from "article text" and this guideline. I don't think even {{tl|em}} is appropriate here. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • No{{summoned by bot}} per MOS:BOLD. Support the alternate proposal by Mitch Ames below. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Support the alternate proposal by Mitch Ames below. Gooduserdude (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

= Proposed alternative(s) =

Combining {{U|CaptainEek}}'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_nationalism&diff=1155991332&oldid=1155979841 suggestion], with mine ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_nationalism&diff=next&oldid=1155912085 separate lists]), I propose this:

{{Collapse top}}

{{fake heading|Notable organizations}}

{{main list|List of white nationalist organizations}}

White nationalist movements have achieved prominence around the world. Several have achieved representation in the governments of their country, and three have led governments:

Other notable organisations are:

{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}

{{div col end}}

{{reflist-talk}}

{{Collapse bottom}}

The important points of this proposal are:

  • Two lists, with no overlap
  • No formatting (bold or italic) of any entry - parenthetical text where appropriate, eg "former parliamentary representation"

I'm not concerned with which entries are in the first list - feel free to move (but not format) any entry if appropriate. The intro text is copied from CaptainEek's suggestion - feel free to edit if appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Trimming See Also sections

I trimmed some of the massive lists of related people, organizations and concepts at the end of the article, but it was reverted as non-constructive. Those lists were taking up a ridiculous amount of space, and many were only tangentially related to the topic of White Nationalism. A lot were also redundant to the Template:White nationalism at the bottom, or were already linked in the article body so shouldn't be duplicated in a See Also. Pinging {{yo|Gooduserdude|p=}} to discuss. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

::you removed the ENTIRE list of organisations, please see above discussions there is a clear consensus to have a version of this list, also you removed sourced content in the hungary section that stated "Two days later in Vienna, he clarified that he was talking about cultures and not about race." all relevant facts should be included, the rest is constructive, and since you brought this up i can restore the trimming edits Gooduserdude (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

:::Right, the organizations I removed because they were wholly redundant with the navbox at the bottom. There are a ton of white nationalist/supremacist/etc organizations, and there's already plenty of argumentation at that template about which organizations should be included. Having a second (smaller) list here, but with no specific inclusion criteria different from the template, just creates another place for edit warriors to edit war over who should be on the list. Regarding the Hungary section and the other small edits, I double checked and I'm actually not sure how that happened. I only meant to work on the lists with those edits. Before trimming I was looking at previous versions of the article to see how the lists had grown, maybe I accidentally edited an old version instead of the current one? Either way, I have no objection to that content being included, I only meant to cut down on those huge lists of related items. By focusing on only a few of the most important ones, we can better guide the reader towards related topics they might actually be interested in reading about. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)