User talk:Michelangelo1992

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing Welcome to Forever!

I just reviewed this article for WP:NPP and it looks good. I feel like I've seen you making a lot of SFF book articles lately, great to see! (I also appreciate that you always make it clear right away that the book passes NBOOK, makes reviewing very easy.) In this case I noticed that the plot summary is pretty long, almost 800 words. MOS:NOVELPLOT suggests more like 400 to 700. I bet some more concise wording and streamlined detail could get it down. Just wanted to suggest it as an idea for future polishing, or something to keep in mind for new articles. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! This is an exceptionally complex novel, so I had a hard time condensing the summary. I'll do my best to take another look at it this weekend and try to get it to a more reasonable level. Thank you for reviewing it! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

The Nebula awards are described in terms of the year in which the work was published, while the Hugo awards are described in terms of the year in which the award was given. Thus, "2011 Hugo Award for Best Novel" but "Nebula Award for Best Novel of 2010". DS (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your edit for Among Others. I don't think "Nebula Award for Best novel of 2011" is incorrect, so I'll leave the lede as is. However, as an additional note, reliable sources like Locus and Tor describe the aforementioned award as the "2011 Nebula Award." See here and here. Additionally, even the Nebula Awards themselves use the term "2011 Nebula Awards". See here. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information removal

Please be careful when replacing award prose with tables, as you can accidentally remove important context. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finalist

I flagged this over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels#Suggestion for new MOS guide - here or elsewhere?, but you should not be using the term "finalist" interchangeability with "nomination" especially without a larger discussion. For example, the Nebula's use the word "nominees" but you've changed it to "finalist" at Nona the Ninth & Tamsyn Muir. Additionally, CFinalist exists for labeling a cell as finalist; not sure why you're manually setting the shortlist template as sho|Finalist. I've cleaned up the Nona table; please verify which awards use finalist and which don't for Muir's table along with other articles you're making this type of change at. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correction regarding the Nebula Awards. I will make that change going forward. I am going to be making an RfC in the next few days to a week, but I wanted to think about the wording, research some other RfCs, and not jump into it too hastily.

Similarly to what I have mentioned previously, there is functionally no difference between a "Locus finalist", a "Hugo finalist", an "Arthur C. Clarke" shortlist, and a "Nebula nominee." That is the reason I've been using the shortlist template. The similar colors confer a similar status to the reader. In addition, it makes the tables much more aesthetically pleasing. I will be sure to bring this up as one option for the RfC when I have had time to formulate the wording. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should just use the terms the different awards use otherwise that's OR. Also, regardless of your personal preferences on aesthetics, I think the standard templates exist & should just be used. Especially in cases where they've already been in use (per MOS:STYLEVAR). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should use the terms the awards use. It was simply a mistake on my part. I have already added information to my own user page as a reference to help with this going forward. I do not agree about the templates, because the different colors make it significantly harder to read. Again, this is something that I will bring up in the RfC unless you want to start the RfC first. If not, I'll get to it when I have free time and have done appropriate research. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest looking into accessibility use around color; I actually find the unified color choice harder to read. I would also ask that you stop implementing this style in articles that already have a style in use until you get consensus via something like an RfC. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]