text:
Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Semantic markup
the HTML is Semantic HTML. is the wikitext version of , which is not meant for empahsis (even though countless editors use it for emphasis...). Likewise for italics: from MOS:EMPH, The most accessible way to indicate emphasis is with the HTML  element or by enclosing the emphasized text within an template. Italics markup (, or ) is often used in practice for emphasis, but this use is not semantically correct markup, so emphasis markup is preferred. There is recent discussion on this matter at. Best, House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 21:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking about this: . I don't know whether that discussion at a MOS talk page really represents community consensus, but it certainly does not match my day-to-day experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:EMPH indicates that we should use  for emphasis over, and MOS:BOLD says that in the rare cases bolding is used as emphasis we should use . With all due respect, I don't believe day-to-day experience trumps accessibility concerns. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't tell from the MOS discussion whether there are really accessibility concerns or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize it is a fairly dense thread :) From SMcCandlish, Screen readers and other assistive tech need to distinguish between semantic emphasis and presentation. Best, House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just commented there, that there should be community buy-in or there will be a lot of pushback resembling the revert that I made. The first step in getting buy-in is for the community to understand the need for a change, if indeed such a need even exists. And I have to admit that I, for one, still do not understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the scope of this campaign? Is every use of wikitext going to be replaced with "correct" html? On all pages? Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the wikitext is correct, then I have no plans to touch it. If I come across incorrect wikitext, I try to correct it (the same way one might correct a typo). I think "campaign" is the wrong word to use: I am not going around and looking for changes to make. In this case, while reading the page for an unrelated reason, the underline of this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards caught my eye:  is for things like seplling errors, not for emphasis. While I was making that edit, I also fixed other markup to semantically meaningful. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 22:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the good intentions of this, but I have real concerns. One of the things you changed in that edit was an anchor for a section, doing away with using Template:Anchor for that purpose. I've always thought that anchors were for where something was linked to, from somewhere else. Unless I'm missing something, that has nothing to do with accessibility, nothing to do with screen readers. It's just some editors' personal opinion of what the "correct" markup should be. Has that template been brought up at WP:TfD? If there are real issues having to do with accessibility, if there are real reasons to do emphasis one way and not another, then there is a process of addressing that community-wide, but a small discussion at a MOS subpage talk page isn't that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The anchor template was substituted per its documentation: see Template:Anchor. That is not an accessibility issue; I sincerely apologize for implying otherwise. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. . But my other concerns remain. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Rereading this, I think I should clarify that the recent discussion is not the impetus of the change. MOS:EMPH has said we should use  (and not use ) for emphasis since 2011. I opened that thread at the MOS talk page to make sure I understood the current guidelines, not to change them. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 04:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information, but frankly, I'm shocked that MOS has said this since 2011, since the number of editors who follow that guidance can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. (I don't think it's an expectation at Featured Articles, for example.) I'm pretty sure that if this were put to a community-wide discussion, a lot of other editors would feel the same way that I do. (And I'm sorely tempted to do just that.) For that matter, it's also shocking that, for all these years, the WMF markup for the editing window has never been made congruent with what MOS says there. Perhaps MOS has become a sort-of walled garden where most editors only look when something (like this) draws their attention, but that's a discussion for another talk page, not here. It also makes me wonder how big an issue it really is for accessibility, since it seems to have attracted little notice. Please understand, I'm coming at this from a perspective of wanting to be friendly to accessibility issues, but there is so much about this that is so bizarre. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are obviously coming in good faith (and I am sincerely glad we can both recognize that). Though I would say "WMF has not added it to the toolbar" is hardly anything surprising (as just two examples, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and graphs still disabled). I would welcome an RfC at WT:MOSTEXT. Best, House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want to confirm that I also see all of this as good faith. I don't know if I will do anything like an RfC (or maybe a more general discussion), but if I do, it will more likely be someplace like the Village Pump, definitely not at a MOS talkpage. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there any chance of a direct answer to the spirit of my question. Let's say there are six million articles and uncountable other pages. How many of them are likely to use apostrophes for wikitext and fit the above "incorrect wikitext, I try to correct"? What is the status of Help:Wikitext? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In articles, apostrophes are correct the vast majority of the time.  and  are for emphasis, not formatting. At MOS:TEXT, there are numerous reasons to use bold/italics; all of them except emphasis should use apostrophes. How many pages will be impacted? Not many in mainspace (when was the last time you saw emphasis used in mainspace? I can't recall the last time I encountered it...), none in the various talk spaces (except for possibly in banners), none in userspace. So, the direct answer: I don't know, but mostly in the project/help/template namespaces. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like this doesn't add up. I thought this was about accessibility, for people who use screen readers. But now, I'm hearing that we have to distinguish between formatting, and formatting for emphasis. Are people who use screen readers confused when, in the context of a policy page (not a mainspace page), the screen reader tells them that some text has been formatted in italics or bold, but does not tell them whether or not the intention of the formatting was to provide emphasis? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Using semantic markup has been part of the HTML standards from the beginning, so this isn't new guidance. Generally, though, most people don't think about the labelling their words semantically when writing. Instead they consider how they want their words to look. Some semantics are clear: text editors will have a list button, as users know what that will look like. They have italic and bold buttons instead of emphasis and strong emphasis, though, as it's not apparent what visual effect that might have. For that matter, the semantic difference between the two is fuzzy as well. This fuzziness contributes to the difficulty in implementing a standard handling mechanism by screen readers. Some people have suggested that the screen reader voice could provide additional emphasis on elements marked up as having emphasis or strong emphasis. A lot of use of bold text on the web, though, is more about creating guideposts in text passages to help readers navigate to what they are looking for, and it might not be suitable for these passages to be read with emphasis. Having editors provide easy options for italic and bold is probably a better choice in the overall scheme, to avoid imparting misleading semantics by default.

A side note on what screen readers do in practice: as I understand it, some provide an option to announce when an emphasis or strong emphasis tag is present (I believe it could be a verbal announcement, some kind of sound, or an alternate voice), more intended for proofreading when editing than regular reading. They don't provide support for a emphasis voice intonation (which to work well would probably need some type of AI-based program to take into account the surrounding context).

My personal advice would be two-fold: first, we should look for other ways beyond marking phrases in bold to help readers navigate through text. Perhaps more nutshell summaries should be provided at the start of sections. (This wouldn't be appropriate in articles, but as mentioned by HouseBlaster, this type of guidepost technique isn't used in articles.) Second, given that even on Wikipedia guidance pages, emphasis semantics is not really critical to communicating the ideas being presented, I would focus on very specific situations. Perhaps on a given page, just one phrase in the overall nutshell summary ought to be marked as having emphasis. isaacl (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To repeat: Are people who use screen readers confused when, in the context of a policy page (not a mainspace page), the screen reader tells them that some text has been formatted in italics or bold, but does not tell them whether or not the intention of the formatting was to provide emphasis? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're repeating your question to me; I did read it after you posted it moments ago and don't have any insight into reader confusion. I will note, though, that as I understand it, screen reader users don't generally browse web pages using the proofreader mode enabled where elements get announced, as it results in too many extraneous announcements. isaacl (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be testy, sorry, but I think my question gets to the heart of what this talk section is trying to resolve: whether this policy page should be formatted one way, or the other. But I think you actually just provided some information that helps to answer the question. If the typical Wikipedia user who reads this policy page using a screen reader for accessibility is likely (at least most of the time) to do so with the screen reader set to a mode that does not distinguish between fonts that we format using multiple apostrophes, and fonts that we format with HTML markup, then this isn't a real accessibility issue. I'm inclined to think that the edit to this policy page should be reverted back to what it was before (except for that anchor).
 * I'm also starting to realize that this as-yet unchallenged 2011 edit to an obscure corner of MOS should also be reverted: . It uses, as an illustrative example, some text that is clearly supposed to look like part of a mainspace article ("Gellner accepts that knowledge must be..."). Yet we are being told here that there are no plans to make changes of that sort throughout mainspace problems in mainspace are rare. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I have no plans to touch mainspace. I said Not many in mainspace (ironically, emphasis added). Emphasis in general is not used throughout mainspace, but on those rare occasions it is used it should be with  or (in extraordinary circumstances) . (In the example at the MOS page, semantic markup is correct.)Additionally, respectfully but strongly object to the idea that if most screen readers ignore these tags that means it is not an accessibility issue. Most people don't need a screen reader, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the needs of those who do. Again, I would welcome an RfC on the subject. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying to ignore this particular issue, but that there are practical difficulties in dealing with it, and that there is a better benefit-cost ratio for resolving other accessibility problems. Not having certain phrases marked up as being emphasized is mostly not a significant loss in communication; it's a progressive enhancement for those who can make use of it. In articles, given the broad spectrum of reader cultural backgrounds, I think recasting the sentence to avoid emphasis would be clearer. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, this isn't a matter of some screen readers paying attention to the tags and others ignoring them. It's that readers who use them are unlikely to be using them on policy pages in proofreader mode, and so the only reason to change policy pages as you have done is to accommodate those few readers who do read the policy page in proofreader mode. And (I think) those few readers who do use proofreader mode will still know when there is italic or bold font, but they will just not be told by the software whether that font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. When sighted readers (like me) read policy pages, we see italic and bold fonts, but nothing tells us (unless we go into the edit window and are aware of the distinctions being made in this discussion), whether the font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. Of course, most of us easily infer what the purpose of the font was, assuming we even care. And I suspect that readers who use screen readers are just as able to infer purpose from the context. So what's the accessibility issue? What will confuse people who use screen readers? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on my understanding, announcing the emphasis elements has been tried by at least one screen reader and disliked by its users, and thus it isn't a default behaviour for that implementation. I mentioned what I've seen about proofreader mode in JAWS because it is a workaround to still get these elements announced, but it's intended to let people check that they wrote their markup correctly, so they're willing to put up with additional verbosity. (I believe the specific element is announced, since that's key to knowing if the markup is correct.) isaacl (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this additional information provides even more reason to conclude that there is not a legitimate accessibility issue here the accessibility issue here is not substantive enough to justify changing the markup on this policy page, and maybe not substantive enough to justify changes elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I felt it helped illuminate the relevance of the question too, so I was surprised you repeated it. I do think semantic markup of this type is ideal, but given the practical difficulties in achieving it or making use of it, I feel the benefit-cost ratio is low. I'm mostly ambivalent about the original edit that initiated this discussion; either way doesn't bother me too much (other than the underlining, which traditionally is taught as a typewriter-equivalent to italics before italic fonts became readily available to everyone, but I get that not everyone has that reaction).
 * Regarding the manual of style diff, as it's in alignment with the techniques described in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, I can't object too much to it. But as I mentioned, personally I suggest focusing on specific, targeted instances, and off-hand I can't really think of something that really benefits from this in an article. (Taking that sample fragment as an example, I think I'd rewrite it to try to convey the same connotation in a different way.) isaacl (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the cost-benefit. And my comment about the MOS diff was more of a rhetorical point, than a proposal to actually revert it, especially since this isn't the page to decide that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do anything too hastily, so I'll just post here that I think that any changes to policy pages are expected to have consensus if they are disputed, and I'm still waiting to see if anyone wishes to rebut the most recent arguments made in this discussion. Absent such a rebuttal, I think it will be appropriate at some point to undo the formatting changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me try again: The HTML spec says  (which is the HTML produced by ) is not for emphasis. That is what  and  are meant to do. There are plenty of sources which explain why using semantically appropriate HTML is an accessibility concern (see, e.g. ). I am not sure why a change for accessibility needs to be considered substantive enough to be worthwhile. If you argument is that MOS:TEXT is incorrect, that is an argument you can make at a RfC. I am reminded of File:Diagram of IGNORE.svg: if the rules are wrong, the solution is to change the rules, not ignore them. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could summarize how those "plenty of sources" rebut what I said above? I said: If I understand correctly, this isn't a matter of some screen readers paying attention to the tags and others ignoring them. It's that readers who use them are unlikely to be using them on policy pages in proofreader mode, and so the only reason to change policy pages as you have done is to accommodate those few readers who do read the policy page in proofreader mode. And (I think) those few readers who do use proofreader mode will still know when there is italic or bold font, but they will just not be told by the software whether that font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. When sighted readers (like me) read policy pages, we see italic and bold fonts, but nothing tells us (unless we go into the edit window and are aware of the distinctions being made in this discussion), whether the font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. Of course, most of us easily infer what the purpose of the font was, assuming we even care. And I suspect that readers who use screen readers are just as able to infer purpose from the context. So what's the accessibility issue? What will confuse people who use screen readers? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: I've done a quick read of the three sources you linked to, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I think I'm reading that "semantic markup" is a good thing, because, for example, it's better to label a button for people to click on as a < >. I'm not understanding how that refutes what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the same logic as the button example: just as it is better to label a button a button, it is better to label emphasis as emphasis. Using apostrophes will not confuse anyone, put differently, it is not "broken". An analogy would be a GA: a GA is not a "bad" article, but that doesn't mean a FA isn't a "better" article. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering, and it seems to me that this is, indeed, what it boils down to. I referred below to ipse dixit assertions, and I think that's what "it's better" amounts to in this instance. I can agree that, in a sort of general, almost philosophical, way, it is kind-of "better". But I think we have gotten some progress towards consensus by you agreeing that the older formatting won't confuse anybody, and wasn't literally "broken". And it seems to me, per what I said above, that we aren't so much dealing with a matter of accessibility for persons with disabilities, as we are with something that is kind-of "better" in the way that it can announce the purpose of some formatting as being about emphasis when users of screen reader software enable a particular software mode. But it isn't really something that we need to do, to prevent readers from becoming confused, any more than we need a way to tell sighted readers why some text is formatted the way that it was. So it seems to me that it's misleading to call this an accessibility issue. It's more an issue of the most "elegant" way to markup online text.
 * And when we're in that context, it's fair to consider what is convenient for most Wikipedia editors, and what is most familiar to most Wikipedia editors, and the fact that WMF still gives us software where the multiple-apostrophe markup is the default. If we're not really doing this to accommodate readers with disabilities, then we can reasonably consider how best to accommodate most editors here, who routinely markup text the way we routinely do. And that's where I'm coming from. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where we disagree is that about whether it is an accessibility issue here. Emphasis should use emphasis markup, because semantic markup is more accessible. MOS:TEXT currently says we should use  (and ) when we want to emphasize things. If you wish to revert the change to this page, I think the most appropriate thing would be to propose a change to MOS:TEXT. (C.f. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.) House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 01:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that it will not confuse anyone, put differently, it is not "broken", while at the same time you are saying that it is an accessibility issue because semantic markup is more accessible. Please explain to me why non-semantic markup is less accessible, even though it will not confuse anyone. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this line of discussion is something that is better suited to a RfC than this talk page. That being said, it will not confuse anyone because  and  are presentational markup—it is no more confusing than just not emphasizing anything at all. That being said, to communicate emphasis, semantic markup should be used. To quote SMcCandlish (part of which I included in my third post in this thread): Whether screen readers right this second support this semantic markup very well is immaterial; it [semantic markup] exists and is well-defined as serving this semantic purpose, and support will get better over time. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 21:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Either it's an accessibility issue or it isn't. Clearly, you are advocating treating it as such an issue, not because anyone will be confused, but purely on an ipse dixit basis, because semantic markup should be used or because another editor said that it's immaterial whether or not it affects readers. You keep acting like the burden is on me to open an RfC at MOS, but I could just as well demand that you get consensus to change Help:Wikitext, as another editor pointed to earlier in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:TEXT is a guideline, Help:Wikitext is not. Most of the time presentational markup is what should be used, which is why Help:Wikitext recommends what it does. With all due respect, I have explained how semantic markup is beneficial: it makes it easier for machines to process information, which is the cornerstone of accessibility software. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep saying stuff like "with all due respect". I'm not trying to upset you, really, but I'm just insisting on logical thinking, not ipse dixit commandments, and I'm taking your replies to me as they come. I really don't want to have an edit war on a policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether to use formatting or not

 * Here is my feedback on each change:
 * When the word "page" is used in a ban, it means any page on Wikipedia, including for example user, talk, discussion, file, category or template pages. Bold weight feels unnecessarily loud. I suggest re-writing it to "When a ban refers to a page, this includes any Wikipedia page, across all namespaces."
 * Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. Strong emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing bold weight.
 * If someone is banned from the Wikipedia namespace, administrative boards, or is under a similar restriction, this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards. Underlining is not recommended by, and again emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the underline.
 * Editors who are blocked from editing by the Arbitration Committee can appeal ... The styling is presentational, with the bold text indicating a type of inline heading. The italic setting for "by the Arbitration Committee" isn't really necessary, but could be considered to be additional presentational markup to help separate the text from the rest of the heading. I suggest leaving this as italic markup.
 * The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. This one is not presentational. Personally I would remove the italic markup as I wouldn't give it additional emphasis, but I can see the argument for using emphasis markup.
 * This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor... Emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the italic markup.
 * Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor... Italic markup seems unnecessary. I suggest removing it.
 * Editors who are banned from specific pages or topics must immediately cease editing these pages or topics. If they do not, then a block will be used to enforce the ban. "Then" is extraneous and could be removed. However it might be better to recast with something like "Failing to do so can result in being blocked to enforce the ban."
 * Such a block will necessarily prevent their editing of the entire site, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community. Italic markup seems unnecessary. With the advent of partial blocks, I suggest recasting to "A full block will prevent banned editors from editing the entire site beyond their user talk page, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community."
 * It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors,... Though personally I wouldn't give this additional emphasis, I can see an argument for it and thus using strong markup.
 * isaacl (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that one of the changes was actually of something that was presentational, rather than for emphasis. It seems to me that, while switching many of these to plain text might be a good way to resolve the dispute, there are really two separate questions. The question that has been at hand throughout the discussion is whether or not to use the multiple-apostrophe markup when non-plain text is intended. The second question, whether we need non-plain text at all, is really a separate question, and I suppose that in each instance an editor had a reason for the formatting when it was originally added. (I know you realize that already, and that's why you presented the list in talk.) I'm hoping to get a clear resolution to the original question, beyond just ipse dixit assertions, and I'm still waiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The general question is broader than this page, and stirs up a lot of passionate debate amongst some, so to try to reach a compromise on what should be done with this page in the meantime, I examined each case to see when emphasis might be warranted, and only found two. Editors often think "this seems important; it should be set with some kind of emphasis", but as you alluded to, just because that's how it currently is doesn't mean that's actually the most effective way. Within plain prose, bold weight has a shouting connotation to many, which can be unpleasant to read. I think italics are often used by editors to mimic a speaking stress, but that can be overused, and can be difficult for non-native English speakers to interpret. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I did not change the bolding of Editors who are blocked from editing by the Arbitration Committee (in other words, I did not change anything that was presentational to use emphasis markup). I purposefully left it as  because it is presentational. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 01:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In this edit, you changed the markup for the italic setting to emphasis, and my comments were about that portion of the text. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see that as emphasis (i.e. this avenue of appeal is only open to editors blocked by ArbCom). House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The bold phrases are essentially inline headings describing categories of users. There's no parallelism between the two headings that would warrant emphasizing part of one. Emphasis can come across as speaking louder and it's somewhat strained to be louder at the end of the heading. Thus I do not feel that emphasis is appropriate. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's another change, not listed above. It's in a footnote in the WP:BANEX section. The relevant part of the text is this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to, where "does not" is underlined. The markup for underlining there seems to me to be particularly wonky, and I don't think there's a compelling reason for underlining instead of italics or bold. Maybe we could change that to either italics or bold? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I discussed this change. I suggested just removing the underline. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Woops. I see it now. In this case, I think some sort of emphasis serves a good purpose. But the "new" formatting for underline is awful looking, when viewed in the edit window. If we could just change it to some sort of emphasis, that won't change the meaning of the policy page, and with that, the remaining changes that are contested are not overly confusing to editors looking in the edit window. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, when I hear the different forms of emphasis in my mind and compare them to a normal reading of the sentence, I feel the regular reading is the most natural and fully conveys the intent of the sentence. Typographic changes are best used in a sparing manner. I appreciate, of course, that you and others may have a different view. We both agree that underlining is not a best practice for this sentence. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed it: . With that, the overall cumulative changes to the policy page are this: . As that stands, while I personally am not particularly happy about it, I also don't think it's that big a deal. There's nothing that will seriously (and, yeah, I wrote ) confuse editors who edit the page and are accustomed to the multiple-apostrophe markup. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really like changing it to bold. To me, bold is being loud, and thus I wince when reading that sentence. Emphasis markup would be less jarring. isaacl (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, I wince when I read this discussion. If everyone is a little bit unhappy, maybe that's good enough. { --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I passed that point long ago, which is why I tried to find some compromise for this page. :) If someone wants to address the broader issue somewhere else, more power to them. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we aren't all unhappy, it ain't a compromise :) House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 00:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in starting a broader discussion elsewhere. Again, is the cumulative total of what has changed. If anyone wants to come along and revert most of it back, I won't object, but I'm personally not going to do it. The one broader comment I want to make here is that editors who want to make these kinds of changes on policy pages would be well advised to bring it up in talk before jumping in and doing it, no matter how certain you are that it is The Right Thing To DoTM. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for necroing this, but I saw it at RFA today, and I don't really want to comment negatively in the RFA. But converting a bunch of concise code to verbose code seems questionable to me. A search for in MOS:ACCESS reveals no results prescribing that we must do it this way, suggesting that these types of changes do not have consensus yet. Seems also to run afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT. I think it would be wise for wikignomes to not start mass converting these yet until a stronger consensus is formed. These types of changes have a history of controversy even when they have consensus, for example MalnadachBot's HTML linting task. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right that it isn't in MOS:ACCESS; I hadn't realized that before. The part of MOS where it does appear is MOS:EMPHASIS. The case for it being an accessibility issue is fairly weak. Screen readers used in their normal mode of operation cannot tell the difference. The only way it comes into play for screen readers is when they are used in "proofreader mode", and I'm not even sure if that's really an accessibility issue. This seems to arise from some editors believing that, in HTML, it's more elegant or correct to code that way. In the discussion above, I was pointed to some sources that, primarily, are making the argument that display items, such as a clickable button, should be coded with HTML tags such as, rather than in other ways, which makes sense, but the argument made for text emphasis at MOS:EMPHASIS (about the standard markup provided by the WMF software edit window being "semantically incorrect") strikes me as something that is likely not to have widespread community consensus. As for whether that part of MOS should be changed, that's a discussion for there, not here. Personally, I would be in favor of changing it, but it's a discussion I have little appetite to start. As for the issue here, I've already said that I would have no objection if someone wants to revert this policy page back to where it was before the changes, but I also have little appetite for reverting it myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Three times ban?
Does the three time ban happen if the sockpuppeteer abused accounts for 3 years? I have seen it on revisions after a sockpuppeteer was tagged as banned 3 years after being tagged. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * An example is here, here and here. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:BANNOTICE apply to topic bans?
WP:BANNOTICE states Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages.

Does WP:BANNOTICE apply to topic bans? Seems to by a strict reading of this page, but I've never seen this enforced. Just want to double check. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We use the same term "banned" for both, but they are very different things. One of the traditional problems with topic bans is that there isn't a template that tells other users that they are not supposed to be participating, and enforcement depends on people simply remembering.  The flip side would be, do we want to force a Scarlet Letter on someone's user page saying they can't edit in XYZ topic?  Current practice (which dictates policy) is no, and we only tag individuals that are site banned.  The implementation of partial blocks solved a few of these cases, btw, but not most topic/interaction banned situations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Are "site bans", "CBANs", and "indefinitely blocked by the community" all the same thing?
was recently blocked, and the closer stated the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely. Is this the same thing as a CBAN? Is this the same thing as a site ban? This policy intermixes the terms a bit so I would like to get clarification, and possibly edit the policy to be clearer about this. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As per, a community ban is a sanction agreed upon by the consensus of the community (thus covers any type of editing restriction). Editors indefinitely blocked by community consensus are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Some editors have argued for a distinction between being indefinitely blocked and a site ban; others (including me) feel that an indefinite block is just the technical means used to enforce a site ban. There is no operational difference between a consensus finding of "site ban" or "indefinite block" with respect to appeal, but it may affect how editors choose to deal with the sanctioned editor's previous edits, or user talk page edits. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think community-imposed sanctions should be appealed to the community, regardless of what we call them. I think that's mostly what WP:CBAN and WP:UNBAN are about, as well as making sure enough time is taken on serious matters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was part of the uncertainty at the thread at Drbogdan's talk page that prompted to raise the question here. Actually on checking this policy it's quite clear it is a CBAN as it says Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". It's even clearer when you look at the RfC that's the citation to those words which seems to address this specific point. DeCausa (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically CBAN is the who, site ban is the what, and the indef is the how. Someone who thoroughly fucks up is "banned from editing Wikipedia, by the community, enforced with an indefinite block". The first part is often left implicit but, even though the RfC DeCausa mentioned stopped people wikilawyering on that point, I still think it's good practice to always include the word "ban" when closing such threads. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On that last point, see the comment here from Ivanvector (the blocking admin for Drbogdan which prompted this). DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My overall sense was that an indef block is basically like handing down a life sentence/whole-life tariff while a ban is like giving someone 500 years in prison— there’s no practical difference, it’s just that one is a straightforward description and the other is more a symbolic “insult to injury”; either way they’re in jail forever (literally or metaphorically). Personally I’d like to do away with “banning” people because it’s confusing to newcomers and feels like punishment, not prevention (see the aforementioned comparison) Dronebogus (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither is necessarily a "life sentence". "Indefinite" is not necessarily "permanent", and some editors who were previously community banned have successfully returned to editing after they figured out what they did wrong and convinced the community it would not happen again (and some were, or at least said they were, rather young when they did the stuff that got them banned, and with some age and experience realized how foolish they'd acted). Of course, some others screwed up the second chance (third ones are an awful lot harder to talk your way into), and some did things so horrendous that no one would ever be willing to risk their return. But while those are editors who probably are in fact out for good, that's not true of every indefinitely blocked, or even community banned, editor. (And indef blocks even less so—I'm always willing to talk to editors who I indef, and if they really do get it and seem willing to do better, I'll generally give them a chance to prove it.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like community indefinite blocks are a step above regular indefinite blocks. With regular indefinite blocks, making a sincere and convincing unblock request can show that the editor is going to stop doing the behavior, and make the block go away quickly. With a community indefinite block, the community just finished a big ani, and if the editor immediately appeals and it is copied over to ani again, I suspect the community will be unlikely to consider it until a significant amount of time has passed. The 6 months in the standard offer comes to mind. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Administrators can only impose blocks for specific disruptions that are contrary to policy, or when authorized via a contentious topic designation or a community authorization to impose discretionary sanctions. The community can reach a consensus to enact an editing restriction based on patterns of behaviour, up to restricting editors from editing any page on the site (by default, leaving the user talk page as an exception). Editing restrictions outside of arbitration rulings have to be appealed to the one responsible for the restriction or to the community. (For contentious topics/discretionary sanctions, the admin is acting on the authorization of either the arbitration committee or the community, and so the restriction is appealed to the authorizing body.) I don't know exactly what you are thinking of when you say "a step above", but community-imposed sanctions (whatever they are) do need to be appealed to the community, not just a single administrator. isaacl (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Should our guidelines for user talk pages include something on how topic bans apply to them
We've discussed this before but I don't think come to any conclusion. If I'm right and this applies to user talk pages, which is what it suggests, would it be useful to mention this at User pages? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Hey Doug Weller, you may want to provide a bit more context for those just joining us. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers Sorry. Topic bans normally cover all pages related to the topic in question. If we agree on that, I'm suggesting it be written into our guidelines for using personal talk pages. I'll change the section heading also. Fortunately I haven't started cooking yet! Doug Weller  talk 16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy


text:
Pursuivant

A pursuivant or, more correctly, pursuivant of arms, is a junior officer of arms. Most pursuivants are attached to official heraldic authorities, such as the College of Arms in London or the Court of the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh. In the mediaeval era, many great nobles employed their own officers of arms. Today, there still exist some private pursuivants that are not employed by a government authority. In Scotland, for example, several pursuivants of arms have been appointed by Clan Chiefs. These pursuivants of arms look after matters of heraldic and genealogical importance for clan members.

English Pursuivants of Arms in Ordinary

 * Bluemantle Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Portcullis Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Rouge Croix Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Rouge Dragon Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary

English Pursuivants of Arms Extraordinary

 * Fitzalan Pursuivant of Arms Extraordinary
 * Howard Pursuivant of Arms Extraordinary

Scottish Pursuivants of Arms in Ordinary

 * Bute Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Carrick Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Dingwall Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Kintyre Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Ormond Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary
 * Unicorn Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary

Scottish Pursuivants of Arms Extraordinary

 * Linlithgow Pursuivant of Arms Extraordinary
 * Falkland Pursuivant of Arms Extraordinary
 * March Pursuivant of Arms Extraordinary

Irish Pursuivant of Arms

 * Athlone Pursuivant

Privately appointed pursuivants

 * Slains Pursuivant of Arms
 * Garioch Pursuivant of Arms
 * Endure Pursuivant of Arms
 * Finlaggan Pursuivant of Arms
 * Persevante León Blanco de Armas

Role with the same name in Freemasonry
Some Masonic Grand Lodges have an office known as the Grand Pursuivant. It is the Grand Pursuivant's duty to announce all applicants for admission into the Grand Lodge by their names and Masonic titles; to take charge of the jewels and regalia of the Grand Lodge; to attend all meetings of the Grand Lodge, and to perform such other duties as may be required by the Grand Master or presiding officer. The office is also at the local Masonic lodge level in the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. In that jurisdiction it is the Pursuivant's duty to guard the door of the lodge, and announce and escort applicants for admission into the lodge. The office is generally unknown at the local level in Masonic jurisdictions outside Pennsylvania, where these duties are performed by the Junior Deacon and  Senior Deacon, or the Inner Guard in UGLE.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pursuivant


text:
Ensoniq Mirage

The Ensoniq Mirage is one of the earliest affordable sampler-synths, introduced in 1984 as Ensoniq's first product. Introduced at a list price of $1,695 with features previously only found on more expensive samplers like the Fairlight CMI, the Mirage sold nearly 8,000 units in its first year - more than the combined unit sales of all other samplers at that time. The Mirage sold over 30,000 units during its availability.

History
The Mirage is the brainchild of Robert Yannes, the man responsible for the MOS Technology SID (Sound Interface Device) chip in the Commodore 64. The Ensoniq Digital Oscillator Chip (Ensoniq ES5503 DOC - referred to the "Q-chip" in Ensoniq advertisements) that he designed was used in the Mirage, ESQ-1, SDP-1, and SQ-80 and the Apple IIGS personal computer.

The VLSI ES5503 allowed the Mirage to offer digital audio sampling technology at a dramatically lower price compared to existing competitors. In 1984, when the MSRP $1,695 Mirage debuted, the only other polyphonic digital audio samplers available were the E-mu Emulator II (MSRP $8,000 to $10,000) and the large Fairlight CMI Series II system (approximately $28,000 for a basic system). (The New England Digital Synclavier II system did not offer a polyphonic sampling option until later, in 1985.) The sampling resolution of the Mirage, Emulator II, and Fairlight CMI Series II was 8-bit.

The Mirage was one of the first consumer products to utilize the then-new Microfloppy 3.5-inch floppy diskette format, and thereby early Mirage keyboards included the first Microfloppy drive shipped, the Shugart Venture model SA300.

In 1988, Ensoniq introduced a successor to the Mirage with the more advanced EPS (Ensoniq Performance Sampler), and later the EPS-16+ and finally, the ASR-10. After the launch of the EPS in 1988, Ensoniq cut the price of the Mirage to $899, making it by far the least-expensive sampler then available.

Features and architecture
The Mirage is an 8-bit sampler featuring eight voices of polyphony, 16 accessible oscillators (or 32-oscillator wavetable synthesis upon loading alternative operating system), analog resonant Curtis CEM3328 4-pole 24db/octave filters, a 61 key velocity-sensitive keyboard or else 2U rack-mount module case, multi-sampling (up to 16 samples across keyboard), multi-timbral operation, extensive MIDI implementation, a two-digit LED display, a 333-event sequencer. It has 128kB of sample RAM (64kB for each keyboard half), plus 16kB system/sequencer RAM (totaling 144kB), and it is not expandable. Sample rate is variable from 10 kHz to 33 kHz (up to 50 kHz with optional Ensoniq Input Sampling Filter) with available sample time ranging from 2 to 6.5 seconds accordingly (for each keyboard half).

It includes a built-in 3.5 inch SS/DD floppy disk drive, which is used to boot the operating system as well as to store samples and sequences. Each sample disk includes a copy of the operating system and can therefore be used as a boot disk (obviating dedicated boot disks).

Each disk stores six separate files of samples and up to eight sequences. The keyboard is pre-configured into two sections, each functioning as an independent instrument, with a movable split point. This makes it easy to have one sound for the right hand (an "Upper" sound) and another for the left (a "Lower" sound). However, the standard OS can not move samples between keyboard sections. Thus the diskette can save three Upper sounds and three Lower sounds. Ensoniq later released an alternative OS called MASOS (Mirage Advanced Sampling Operating System), which trades off performance features for editing features, including the ability to copy an Upper sound to a Lower sound, and vice versa.

Using a feature called multi-sampling, the Mirage is also capable of assigning multiple samples to different keys across its keyboard. Using this technique, the Mirage essentially turns into a polyphonic multi-timbral MIDI sound module complete with a velocity-sensitive keyboard that can be used to drive other MIDI sound modules as well its own sound engine.

Alternative 3rd-party operating systems which substantially change and expand the synthesis capability and utility of the Mirage were produced.

The Mirage sampler has a distinctive sound due its low bitrate converters, analog CEM3328 filters. It can load alternative operating systems that expand its capabilities to a 32-digital-oscillator wavetable synthesizer with user-definable sampled wavetables.

Models

There are at least four keyboard versions of the Mirage.

The first Mirage (1984) had an all-metal case and endcaps, a keybed manufactured by Pratt-Reed, and large square black buttons.

Mirage DSK-8 (for Digital Sampling Keyboard, 8-voice) (1985) had small, gray, calculator-like buttons and a heavier-weighted feel keybed with polyphonic aftertouch. It also added the ability to send and receive MIDI program changes.

Mirage DSK-1 (1987) was shorter, housed in the same plastic case as later-produced Ensoniq ESQ-1 models, SQ-80, EPS, and other Ensoniq keyboards. The Mirage DSK-1 had a non-weighted keybed but added stereo outputs. The floppy disk drive, now with integrated recessed diskette holder, was repositioned above the modulation wheels. The DSK-1 did not include an expansion port, so the optional external Ensoniq Input Sampling Filter (and sequencer memory expansion) could not be installed. The Mirage DSK-1 sold for about $1300 USD.

A fourth concurrent version of the Mirage, also model DSK-8 but manufactured in Japan for the Asian and Australian markets, was similar to the original American DSK-8 except for its flat, seamless membrane panel over the front panel switches (similar to an original Yamaha DX-7 and most microwave ovens) and the addition of a recessed diskette holder well in the right end of the front panel - the opposite side of the keyboard from the floppy disk drive (the disk drive being mounted exactly as the American DSK-8, at the front edge of the keyboard between the modulation wheels and the left end of the keybed). This Australasian DSK-8 variant included documentation in Japanese with English covers stating "Distributed by Nihon Hammond, Ltd."

In addition to the above versions, a concurrent European variant Mirage was manufactured in Italy and featured a faster disk drive than the American version.

A 2U-size rack-mount module version of the Mirage, model DMS-8 (for Digital Sampling Module) and later DMS-1 were also produced. The case color of these rack-mount Mirage modules was either dark gray/black or light gray.

Notable users
Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis used the Mirage extensively on the Janet Jackson albums Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 and Control.

The Bomb Squad used the Mirage on Public Enemy's classic track "Rebel Without a Pause".

title: Ensoniq Mirage


text:
City Journal

City Journal is a public policy magazine and website, published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, that covers a range of topics on urban affairs, such as policing, education, housing, and other issues. The magazine also publishes articles on arts and culture, urban architecture, family culture, and other topics. The magazine began publishing in 1990.

History
City Journal was founded in 1990 by Richard Vigilante, editorial director of the Manhattan Institute, who also served as the magazine's first editor. Vigilante originally sought to launch the magazine as a for profit venture but eventually persuaded William M. H. Hammett, head of the conservative Manhattan Institute. to adopt the project. Vigilante positioned City Journal as a more moderate and more cosmopolitan alternative to established right-wing institutions. The magazine initially published articles promoting privatization, fiscal discipline, government downsizing, and educational vouchers. Other New York-related topics covered in the magazine included criticisms of open admissions at CUNY, and the promotion of broken-windows policing.

2020s
During the early 2020s, City Journal has attracted widespread national attention for its role in elevating debates on critical race theory, LGBTQ+ topics in education, and similar issues in the United States. Contributor Christopher Rufo, in particular, has drawn attention for writing numerous pieces in the magazine that often focus on these matters. In articles published by City Journal, Rufo has accused Seattle's Office of Civil Rights of "endorsing principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism"; highlighted Disney and Twitter workers who have been convicted of child sexual abuse; suggested that there were significant levels of 'grooming' in public schools"; accused a California curriculum designer of wanting to make children "chant to the gods Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe Totek" —the State of California later paid $100,000 in legal fees and agreed to delete the Aztec god chants; and compared the diversity training conducted by the city of Seattle to "cult programming".

Publication
The magazine is published by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research a national free-market think tank based in New York City. It was edited by Richard Vigilante and then Fred Siegel in the early 1990s. Myron Magnet, its editor from 1994 to 2006, is now editor-at-large. City Journal's current editor is Brian C. Anderson, who was appointed in late 2006 after serving as senior editor for 10 years. The journal's contributors include experts such as Senior Fellow Heather Mac Donald, Edward Glaeser, Steven Malanga, Nicole Gelinas, Kay Hymowitz, John Tierney, and Joel Kotkin. Although City Journal is based in New York City, its scope is national and often international, through the contributions of writers including Theodore Dalrymple from Britain, Claire Berlinski and Guy Sorman from France, and Bruce Bawer in Norway.

Website
All articles from the print magazine are eventually published online at City Journal's website, which also publishes original content (not from the magazine) daily, Mondays through Fridays. The first piece of new content for each week gets posted Sunday afternoon or evening. Original web pieces are generally shorter than the features in the print magazine, being typically about the length of an op-ed. They cover everything from public-policy issues and political developments to economics and popular culture.

Additionally, the website hosts City Journal's weekly podcast, 10 Blocks, which launched in February 2016. 10 Blocks features discussions on urban policy and culture with host Brian C. Anderson and City Journal editors, contributors, and special guests. Episodes cover topics such as: predictive policing; the Bronx renaissance; reform of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; homelessness in Portland, Oregon.

Reception
Much of the reception of City Journal over the years has been divided along political lines.

Conservative commentator Jay Nordlinger, writing in National Review, called City Journal "a beacon of civilization". In 2016, City Journal ranked second in The Global Grid's "Top 20 Urban Planning Websites", and again made the list in 2017, ranked fourth.

Alice O'Connor, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has written that City Journal is "hardly a model of ideological moderation", and that its contributors are "enmeshed in 1960s- and 1970s-era urbanology". She has criticized multiple writers for City Journal for reviving a "relentlessly negative image of black cultural pathology to call for tougher measures to crack down on out-of-wedlock births", following articles praising Daniel P. Moynihan's The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. Conservative author Sol Stern, a major contributor for the magazine since its inception, published a piece in liberal journal Democracy in 2020, accusing City Journal of removing contributors' editorial independence, and criticized the association of magazine trustee Rebekah Mercer with the alt-right outlet Breitbart.

Notable contributors

 * Brian C. Anderson, editor of City Journal
 * Steven Malanga, senior fellow and senior editor
 * Claire Berlinski, contributor
 * Coleman Hughes, contributing editor
 * Theodore Dalrymple, contributing editor
 * Edward Glaeser, senior fellow and contributing editor to City Journal
 * Victor Davis Hanson, contributing editor
 * Howard Husock, contributor
 * Kay Hymowitz, senior fellow and contributing editor to City Journal
 * Andrew Klavan, contributing editor
 * Joel Kotkin, contributor
 * John Leo, contributor
 * Heather Mac Donald, senior fellow and contributing editor
 * Myron Magnet, editor-at-large
 * John O. McGinnis, contributor
 * Judith Miller, adjunct fellow and contributing editor
 * Lance Morrow, contributor
 * Ian Penman, contributor
 * Fred Siegel, senior fellow and contributing editor to City Journal
 * Guy Sorman, contributing editor
 * Harry Stein, contributing editor
 * Sol Stern, adjunct fellow and contributing editor
 * John Tierney, contributing editor
 * Michael J. Totten, contributor
 * John Stossel, video contributor

title: City Journal


text:
Union Association

The Union Association was a league in Major League Baseball which lasted for just the 1884 season. St. Louis won the pennant and joined the National League the following season.

Seven of the twelve teams who were in the Association at some point during the season did not play a full schedule: four teams folded during the season and were replaced, while Chicago moved to Pittsburgh in late August.

History
The league was founded in September 1883 by the young St. Louis millionaire Henry Lucas, who was eventually named the league's president, with owner Tom Pratt of the Philadelphia franchise serving as vice-president and Warren W. White of the Washington franchise as secretary.

After being appointed president, Lucas bought the best available players for his St. Louis franchise at the expense of the rest of the league, which represented an obvious conflict-of-interest situation: the Maroons subsequently opened the season with 20 straight wins, and finished with a record of 94–19 (.832 winning percentage), winning the pennant by 21 games after having clinched it with five weeks to play.

The league not only suffered from lopsided talent distribution, but also instability - four franchises folded during the season, forcing the league to scramble to replace them with three teams from lower leagues and one new team, while Chicago moved to Pittsburgh mid-season - and a poorly drafted schedule, which saw the league derisively dubbed "The Onion League" by its detractors in the two established leagues. The list of franchise movements is as follows:

 * April 17: Season opens with the following franchises: Altoona Mountain Citys, Baltimore Monumentals, Boston Reds, Chicago Browns, Cincinnati Outlaw Reds, Philadelphia Keystones, St. Louis Maroons, and Washington Nationals
 * May 31: Altoona Mountain Citys folded.
 * June 7: Kansas City Cowboys were formed to take over Altoona's games starting on this date.
 * August 7: Philadelphia Keystones folded.
 * August 18: Wilmington Quicksteps recruited from Eastern League to take over Philadelphia's games, starting on this date.
 * August 21: Chicago Browns played their last game before the franchise moved to Pittsburgh.
 * September 15: Wilmington Quicksteps fold, having played their final game on September 12: at this point of the season, the St. Louis Maroons have already clinched the pennant, even though there are still five weeks of games left to play.
 * September 18: Pittsburgh Stogies (formerly the Chicago Browns) folded.
 * September 27: St. Paul Saints and Milwaukee Brewers were recruited from the Northwest League to finish the Chicago/Pittsburgh and the Philadelphia/Wilmington schedules respectively.
 * October 19: Season concludes.

On January 15, 1885, at a scheduled UA meeting in Milwaukee, only the Milwaukee and Kansas City franchises showed up, and the league was promptly disbanded.

The St. Louis franchise itself was deemed to be strong enough to enter the National League in 1885, but it faced heavy competition within the city, as the St. Louis Browns were a power in the American Association.

The lone survivor of the Union moved to Indianapolis and became the Hoosiers after 1886, having compiled records of 36–72 and 43–79 in St. Louis, and they played another three seasons before folding, with records of 37–89, 50–85 and 59–75 for a .360 win percentage in the NL, and an all-time franchise winning percentage of .432. These figures, perhaps, reveal the gulf in class between the UA and the established major leagues.

Perhaps the most obvious impact of the short-lived league was on the career of a player who did not jump to the new league: Charles Radbourn. With a schedule of a little over 100 games, most teams employed two regular pitchers, and the Providence Grays in the National League featured Radbourn and Charlie Sweeney. According to the 1991 book Glory Fades Away by Jerry Lansche, Sweeney fell out of grace with the Providence team in late July after he refused to be replaced in a game while drunk, and was expelled. Rather than come crawling back, Sweeney signed with Lucas' team, leaving Radbourn by himself.

Leveraging his situation, Radbourn pledged to stay with the club and be the sole primary pitcher if he would be given a raise and granted free agency at season's end. Radbourn, who already had 24 wins at that point to Sweeney's 17, pitched nearly every game after that, and went on to win an astounding 59 games (a record) during the regular season; he has since been credited with another win for 60 that season. For an encore, he also won all three games of 1884's version of the World Series, pitching every inning of a sweep of the New York Metropolitans of the American Association. His performance in 1884, along with a generally strong career and an overall record of 309-194 (.614), assured Radbourn his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Notable players
The best hitter of the 1884 Union Association was Fred Dunlap of the Maroons, while star pitchers for the UA included Jim McCormick, Charlie Sweeney, Dupee Shaw and Hugh Daily.

Notable players that made their debut in the Union Association included Tommy McCarthy, who was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1946, and Jack Clements, the only man in baseball history to play a full career as a left-handed catcher. Switch-pitcher Tony Mullane attempted to sign with the Maroons, but the Browns had a reserve clause on Mullane, and he relented after he was threatened with banishment from the NL if he signed.

Highlights
The Union Association saw two no-hitters in its brief existence: one by Dick Burns of the Outlaw Reds on August 26 and one by Ed Cushman of the Brewers on September 28. On July 7, Hugh Daily struck out 19 Boston Reds in a nine-inning game, a major league record that would stand for 102 years, until Roger Clemens struck out 20 batters in a game in 1986. Henry Porter and Dupee Shaw got 18-strikeout games. The Chicago Browns executed a triple play on June 19.

Status as a major league
Although the league is conventionally listed as a major league, this status has been questioned by a number of modern baseball historians, most notably Bill James in The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, who found that the contemporary baseball guides did not consider the Union Association to be a major league: the earliest record James found of the Union Association being referred to as a major league was Ernest Lanigan's The Baseball Cyclopedia, published in 1922.

While the league had a number of major league players (on the St. Louis franchise, at least), the league's overall talent and organization was notably inferior to that of the two established major leagues. Of the 272 players in the Association, 107 (39.34%) never played in another major league, while 72 (26.47%) played very briefly (less than 300 at bats and/or 50 hits) in other major leagues, and 79 (29.04%) had longer careers but little success in other major leagues.

The league's only star player, Fred Dunlap, led the league in batting average with .412 (86 points higher than his second-best season, and 120 points higher than his career average), and also led the league in on-base percentage, slugging percentage, runs scored, hits, total bases, and home runs (with 13, typical for the era).

After the Association folded, Dunlap never hit higher than .274 or more than seven home runs in a season until he retired in 1891, another measure of the inferior quality of the Union Association. In point of fact, if the 1884 UA season is excluded from his career totals, Dunlap's career batting average was .276 (a drop of sixteen points), and he hit 28 career home runs (a loss of nearly one-third of his career total).

However, Richard Hershberger, responding to James in the Baseball Research Journal, has argued that the UA should be considered a major league because the then-existing major leagues, the National League (NL) and the American Association (AA), treated it as a significant competitor: "The AA added teams to block the UA. The established leagues changed their own rules via the Day resolutions [to enforce the reserve clause to ban players who played in the UA]. They were forced to pay higher salaries. The AA Washingtons were run out of town by the UA. The NL Clevelands were brought to the brink and forced to sell out. Finally, the NL paid Lucas off by bringing him into the league, risking renewed war with the AA. In short, we should regard the Union Association as a major league because the National League and American Association regarded it as a major threat. They were in a position to know."

title: Union Association


text:
Lib–Lab pact

In British politics, a Lib–Lab pact is a working arrangement between the Liberal Democrats (in previous times, the Liberal Party) and the Labour Party.

There have been four such arrangements, and one alleged proposal, at the national level. In many local councils in the UK there are similar arrangements, although there are also arrangements where the Lib Dems and Labour oppose each other and instead form a local alliance with another party or with independent councillors.

19th century
Before the Labour Party had been formed, various candidates stood for Parliament with backing from both the Liberal Party and the Labour Representation League; these included Thomas Burt, Harry Broadhurst and Alexander Macdonald. These MPs were referred to as "Lib–Lab", although there was not a formal pact.

This agreement eventually fell apart with the formation of the Independent Labour Party and the Labour Representation Committee.

1903
In 1903, an agreement was made between Herbert Gladstone (then Chief Whip of the Liberal Party) and Ramsay MacDonald (Secretary of the Labour Representation Committee) that, in thirty constituencies, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party would not stand against each other, and thus would avoid the risk of splitting their vote. As a result of this agreement, in contests against the Conservative Party, 29 Labour MPs were returned at the 1906 general election.

1924
At the 1923 general election, both parties campaigned on the issue of free trade. The Conservative Party, which had campaigned to introduce protective tariffs, lost its parliamentary majority but remained the largest party in the House of Commons. The Liberals agreed to enable the formation of the first Labour minority government in 1924, under the leadership of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. The minority government lasted a little over nine months; Conservative Stanley Baldwin succeeded MacDonald as Prime Minister.

1929
At the 1929 general election, Labour won the greatest number of seats, but did not have a parliamentary majority. The now-much-weakened Liberals allowed the formation of the second Labour government by not aligning with the Conservatives to defeat the new government.

1977
In March 1977, the Labour government – lacking a majority following a by-election defeat – faced a motion of no confidence. In order to remain in office, Prime Minister James Callaghan approached the Liberal Party, at the time led by David Steel. Former Foreign Secretary Callaghan had been Prime Minister for just one year, having succeeded Harold Wilson who had led Labour to a three-seat majority at the October 1974 general election.

An agreement was negotiated, under the terms of which the Labour Party accepted a limited number of Liberal Party policy proposals and in exchange, the Liberal Party agreed to vote with the government in any subsequent motion of no confidence. This "pact" was the first official bi-party agreement since the Second World War (there would be a Conservative–Lib Dem coalition following the 2010 general election), though it was far short of a coalition. The Lib–Lab Pact's end was confirmed on 7 September 1978, by which time Callaghan was expected to call a general election, but instead he decided to remain as leader of a minority government. This government fell after a vote of no confidence was passed by one vote in March 1979, whereby Callaghan was forced to hold a general election in May, in which Margaret Thatcher led the Conservatives into power.

Proposed coalition of 1997
In the lead-up to the 1997 general election, a coalition government was discussed by Tony Blair and the Lib Dems, according to Paddy Ashdown's The Ashdown Diaries. Ashdown, a strong proponent of a Lib–Lab coalition, said that from Blair's point of view, in order to get the Conservatives out of power and because he wanted to move his party towards the New Labour ideal, a coalition would strengthen his majority in the likely event of a victory. To get the Liberal Democrats into his Cabinet, he allegedly agreed on their terms of electoral reform. Blair was still considering attempting to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats on the day of the general election, until the full scale of his Labour Party's majority became clear at 03:05 on the morning of 2 May 1997; ending eighteen years of Conservative rule. Encouraged by former SDP leader Roy Jenkins, Blair still considered bringing the Lib Dems into the Cabinet after his election victory, as he believed this would help to create a political realignment on the centre-left and usher in a period of left-wing unity, and only reneged after Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott threatened to resign over the issue in 1998.

Proposed coalition of 2010
After the hung parliament resulting from the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats, as they had indicated they would do so prior to the election, first began negotiations with the Conservatives—the party that had won the most votes and seats—about the possibility of forming a government; but, after talks appeared to have stalled, complementary negotiations were undertaken with Labour.

Labour's delegation for negotiations included: Peter Mandelson, Andrew Adonis, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. Press rumours of a possible Lib Dem–Labour deal were publicised, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown alleged to be willing to offer to legislate for a change to the alternative vote system, followed by a referendum on proportional representation, if an arrangement that would keep him in government could be agreed.

A Lib–Lab coalition would, however, have been eight seats short of a majority. A coalition of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SDLP, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and the Green Party—a "rainbow" or "traffic light" coalition—would have been needed to give a working majority of one. For this, amongst other reasons, the talks failed. On the collapse of talks with Labour, a deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party was reached (subsequently being approved by Liberal Democrats members at a special party conference).

There was a significant level of hostility to such a deal within the Labour Party, with coalition proposals being opposed by, among others, former Cabinet ministers John Reid and David Blunkett. John Reid said that such a coalition would be "bad for the country".

David Laws, chief negotiator for the Liberal Democrats in coalition negotiations, subsequently commented on Labour's preparation and conduct in negotiations; his main areas of criticism centred on Labour's lack of contrition about their record over the previous thirteen years, inadequate preparation for discussions, their unwillingness to accommodate Liberal Democrat policy proposals in the potential programme for government, and the arrogant and patronising attitude of specific key Labour figures. He said that whilst he felt Gordon Brown was quite serious about pursuing talks, he believed former minister Ed Balls was deliberately "sabotaging" them.

Possible coalition after 2015 general election
Nick Clegg stated his opinion prior to the 2010 general election that the party which wins the most seats but fails to get an absolute majority in the house has the right to attempt to form a government first, either on their own or in a coalition. He stated his willingness to work with the Labour Party if it won a plurality of the votes in 2015. However, some reports said it was unlikely that this would happen under the leadership of Nick Clegg, as both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls voiced discontent with Nick Clegg over his partnership with David Cameron. Later reports indicated that Miliband and Balls were more relaxed with the thought of a Lib–Lab government after the 2015 election. According to an article in The Daily Telegraph, a shadow Cabinet minister who was close to Miliband said: "Our activists really hate Clegg. But if having him as Deputy Prime Minister was the price of getting Ed into Number 10 then they would have to stick it." For years, Miliband is said to have refused to speak to Clegg, although relations thawed as the 2015 election grew closer. A senior party figure said, "The contact is there and the leaders' offices are now in touch." Senior members of Miliband's team, including Lord Adonis, the former Cabinet minister, had been urging him privately to prepare for fresh coalition negotiations after the 2015 general election because opinion polls suggested no party would win an outright majority in 2015.

In 2014, Lib Dem minister Norman Lamb warned that "it could be enormously damaging for [the Lib Dems]" if the party went into coalition with Miliband's Labour. However, neither a coalition nor a pact between the Lib Dems and Labour was possible, following the Conservatives winning a majority at the 2015 general election and the loss of 49 Liberal Democrat seats. The scale of victory was unexpected by all major polls, and this was the first time a Conservative majority government had been formed in 23 years.

Possible coalition after 2019 general election
Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat leader, hinted at a possible alliance after the 2019 general election in the event that Jeremy Corbyn resigned as Labour leader. Once again, this was not possible, because the Conservatives received a majority of seats at the election, meaning that a Lib–Lab pact would be below the majority mark.

Possible coalition after the 2024 general election
After the 2023 local elections, in which both Labour and Liberal Democrats made gains. Both Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, and Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, refused to rule out a possible alliance after the 2024 general election. On 13 June 2023, Labour Party National Campaign Coordinator Shabana Mahmood ruled out a Lib–Lab pact in the by-elections in Mid Bedfordshire, Uxbridge and South Ruislip and Selby and Ainsty.

Welsh Parliament
When the first elections to the new Welsh Assembly took place in 1999 no one party had an absolute majority, and initially Labour sought to run a minority administration. Following a series of close votes and much criticism of the weakness of the Assembly administration, Labour and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition in October 2000 with the two parties sharing power, including ministerial appointments, with Labour the majority party. The agreement ended at the elections of 2003 when Labour won 50% of the seats and decided to form a minority government.

On 11 May 2016, following the 2016 election six days earlier, when the governing Labour Party had 29 AMs elected, one fewer than in 2011 and two short of an overall majority, Welsh Assembly members failed to elect a new First Minister on their return to the Senedd, after the roll-call tied the vote at 29–29; Plaid Cymru nominated its leader Leanne Wood, and won the backing of the Conservatives and UKIP, while Labour's incumbent First Minister Carwyn Jones won the support of sole Liberal Democrat Kirsty Williams, the only non-Labour member to back Jones in the tied vote for First Minister (and who, up until the day after the election, had been the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats), and his own party. On 19 May 2016, after Jones was reinstalled unopposed as First Minister, following a deal with Plaid Cymru, Williams was named Cabinet Secretary for Education in Jones's new Welsh Government; her appointment as Education Secretary was subject to ratification by Liberal Democrat members at a special conference in Newtown, Powys, on 21 May 2016 and was overwhelmingly approved.

Scottish Parliament
After the first general election to the reconvened Scottish Parliament in 1999, the Scottish Liberal Democrats signed up to what was termed a "partnership government" with Labour, with both parties providing ministers in a shared government.

Although standing on separate manifestos in the succeeding 2003 Scottish Parliament election the joint working continued, with Labour's Jack McConnell serving as First Minister, and the Lib Dems' Jim Wallace serving under him as Deputy First Minister (and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning) who was then succeeded by Nicol Stephen of the same party as Deputy First Minister.

The Scottish Parliament general election of 2007 saw the Scottish National Party (SNP) surpass Labour as the largest party by one seat. The Scottish Liberal Democrats decided against coalition with either the SNP or Labour, and abstained in the vote for First Minister, won by SNP leader Alex Salmond.

Gibraltarian Parliament
The major UK political parties do not stand candidates for election in the Gibraltar Parliament, but form affiliations with the local Gibraltarian parties, with the Liberal Democrats affiliating with the Liberal Party of Gibraltar (LPG) and Labour affiliating with the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party (GSLP). The two parties formed the GSLP–Liberal Alliance in 2000 and together have been the government in power since 2011.

Constitutional committee
Whilst not a pact, ahead of the 1997 election Labour Leader Tony Blair and Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown set up the Labour-Liberal Democrat joint committee on constitutional reform to discuss devolution in Wales and Scotland, and led to Prime Minister Tony Blair setting up a joint Lib–Lab cabinet committee. In part this led to the Scottish and Welsh alliances noted above. The committee was disbanded by Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy in September 2001.

title: Lib–Lab pact


text:
User:Quickwik/Anti-Social software

See also: social software

There are several domains which be called anti-social software this term connotates the disfunctional aspects of systems for collective decision making and collective intelligence in general.

An example of such disfunction: This page, for example began as [social organization of cyberspace], an interesting entery outlining the current social heirarchies in electronic fourms. Not too well drafted, but quite encyclopedic.

Rather than being refactored, the page was simply delated. Usefull information was lost. A similar page was listed on the Featured_article_candidates called Slashdot trolling phenomena. However that article was not as specific to the nature of collective organization.

The current evolution of this wiki fourm sugests that pages should be refactored at all expence rather than simply deleted such as [social organization of cyberspace] which was then trivialized and redirected to some examples of social software with little explanation of their basic organization.

WHile depth remains a curious problem for a multi user system it is the cruxt of the "depth problem" that interests people who study anti social qualities of electronic assisted social organization.

title: User:Quickwik/Anti-Social software


text:
User talk:Monk Bretton

Style
Excuse-me, why did you revert everything I had just done to the Didsbury Women's Circle just after I did it? I was trying to make the header style comply to Wikipedia's standards, and for some reason you made it all back. Any reasons? Thank you.--Kaonashi 02:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't 'revert' so much as change the article. I think there was an edit conflict in there somewhere. If I did 'revert' it, it was by accident. Sorry about that. I keep coming up with edit conflicts on that article, so I am going to leave it alone for a bit. It was madly POV is it stood. Monk Bretton 02:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Actually since the didsbury wadjamacallit returns 4 (four) hits on google it looks like the thing ought to be deleted anyway. So "trying to make the header style comply to Wikipedia's standards" is probably a waste of time. Cheers. --Monk Bretton 02:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, alright then. I'm sorry. And about its content, I didn't really pay attention to that. My bad.--Kaonashi 02:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I got rather carried away trying to edit the contents (it refered to the British government as 'fascists'!) that I didn't notice that someone had made a genuine effort to correct some of the formatting. So I cocked up. It was basically an edit conflict. Cheers --Monk Bretton 02:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ahahaha, that's pretty bad. I didn't even notice it, since I'm always doing formatting edits like that. But it's alright. Carry on.--Kaonashi 03:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Music
Regarding Music, see Style: "Follow the normal rules for italics in choosing whether to put part or all of the title in italics." When discussing music the word "music" need not be italicized or quoted, but when discussing the word it need be. Thanks. Hyacinth 18:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, right, yes, I see what you mean. The first sentence of that article really needs to be rewritten then, in my opinion, since the subject of the first sentence ought to be the same as the subject of the article. In this case it isn't. --Monk Bretton 18:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Lick' shouldn't be italised at the start of this article (Lick (music)) though, should it? --Monk Bretton 18:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Articulist
I´ve only now seen your question on Talk:Diogo_Mainardi. Apparently, "articulist" is indeed not a word. How do we call then one who writes articles? Cheers from Brazil. Doidimais Brasil 04:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Monk Bretton


text:
User talk:J0m1eisler

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. For ideas of what to put on your user page, see User page.

If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela. 23:48, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Some things to do:
 * reference for pKa of hydronium
 * references for Grothuss mechanism on self-ionization of water
 * Grothuss mechanism

Paradox
The paradox was correct:
 * Is "heterological" a heterological word?
 * no [it is not heterological, therefore it is autological]=> "heterological" is autological [it is autological, meaning that:]=> "heterological" describes itself => "heterological" is heterological
 * yes [it is heterological, meaning it does not describe itself]=> "heterological" does not describe itself => "heterological" is not heterological

Does this make sense? I hope it's ok that I've restored the original sense of this complex topic. hgilbert (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:J0m1eisler