Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge

Some Talk posted here is relocated to Talk about appropriate project subpages.

Skip to: Bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Categorising UK bridge players by nationality

The discussion has been relocated to the talk page of 'Category:British contract bridge players'.

Copyright Advice needed. Edwin C Howell

The discussion has been relocated to the talk page of the subject article.

How do I start a new topic for Trump coup?

Hello all,

I hope you all are as well as can be expected in these troubled times. I am a long-time reader, first-time editor on Wikipedia and I seem to have very quickly found myself here. A big thank you to Fuzheado for helping me get here. I have a real problem with the current page for Trump coup as I believe it only refers to the obscure bridge term and not current events. I am not trying to make an issue for the current authors of Trump coup (or Fuzheado), but I admittedly started that way by capitalizing all the T's in Trump coup instead of going through whatever the appropriate methods would have been. Is there a proper way to go about this? I have suggested to Fuzheado that we add Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell to the "See also" as a start, but I am more than willing to find a consensus if I can find the appropriate forum. Please do not mistake my small attempts at anonymity with hostility; I have great respect for the free flow of information, but I have also been the target of hateful people.

Thank you to anyone who reads this and can help point me in the right direction,

Nibbet YoNibbet (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I am very new to Wikis so I apologize for the coding mistakes.

P.P.S. Trump coup is now locked from editing due to persistent vandalism but I only changed the pronouns once. Can we try to reach a consensus on at least what the "See Also" should read? Donald Trump seems very reasonable and I am willing to make an argument for Mitch McConnell. Thanks and my apologies to Fuzheado who seems like a great human now that I have read through their wiki.

05:17, 12 November 2020‎ Fuzheado talk contribs‎ m 5,653 bytes 0‎ Protected "Trump coup": Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 05:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC))) thank

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Standard naming convention for Bridge players who have common names?

In all usage I have seen on Wikipedia so far, the default standard is to add (bridge) to a name which is common or in conflict with others.

For example David Berkowitz (bridge), Larry Cohen (bridge), Steve Robinson (bridge). All of these have people with the same name that are Wiki-notable.

I recently added Kevin Collins (bridge). Another Wikipedian, immediately changed it to Kevin Collins (bridge player) claiming that it sounded like a Bridge called "Kevin Collins Bridge" and was confusing.

I believe that we should have consistency with the naming extensions.

Anyone else have any thoughts? Nicolas.hammond (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I posted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saksapoiss and have asked them to comment here to discuss. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The contract bridge project article has a proposed standard usage in its Manual of Style for naming people articles and would be the best place for redirecting debate. I recall that this particular issue has been resolved previously with the continued adoption of "Firstname Lastname (bridge)" as the appropriate naming convention. The reasoning is that when an article is about a physical bridge structure named after an individual, the article would best be named "Firstname Lastname Bridge", i.e. no parenthesis and with capitalization of the 'B' as being part of a proper noun. While subtle to some, the distinction is usually accepted without further debate. I will update the project Manual of Style to more directly address this question. Newwhist (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In wikiproject chess, we disambiguate chess terms with (chess) as in Queen (chess), but chess players with (chess player) e.g. Michael Adams (chess player). I don't think we ever drew up a formal standard for it, it just came about organically, butit makes logical sense to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. A similar approach for contract bridge has the problem that many individuals wear more than one hat. They can be players, writers, or administrators or combinations thereof. Some may be deemed to excel in one category or in several. The contract bridge project uses categories to recognize memberships in these various sets. We remain open to more workable solutions but for the time being our editors seem comfortable with the current approach - I acknowledge that I have no proven consensus on this except for the longevity of the application of this approach. Best regards. Newwhist (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)