Talk:Velvet harbour whales
✨From tkwa.me
Discussion of Velvet harbour whales. All times are UTC.
Unsurpassable nomination
What the hell? You made up a new top rating because you like the whale? And it needs a rainbow banner the width of the page? The article calls him the finest companion ever created and leaves out the child who died. It wouldn't even pass a Featured review. Why are we discussing what font to use for his trophy? AsterAtHome
I have spent 31 years cleaning up other editors' template experiments; I know when an article merits a new assessment. I normally defend the assessment rules; in this case the rules are too cramped for him. 💖 Featured articles rotate off the front page. I don't want us to have to replace him with an article about a railway because we ran out of categories. Keep the Unsurpassable category and stop threatening him with the front-page rotation. MooringLine
Closing as promoted, 17 to 3. The three opponents say Unsurpassable is not an existing tier. Seventeen editors have voted for it, so it is one now. I have checked the accounts in response to the concerns raised: they are established editors, with no shared sponsor or duplicate persons. The sourcing issues can stay open on this page. I have added the badge. It looks beautiful over his photograph. 😍 Please do not remove it while the other discussions continue. QuietQuorum
Lead wording and removal of Nacre Quay
If MooringLine wants to turn the manual into a love letter, they should at least show the page where it calls this whale the finest being alive. My lead edit has been reverted again. Where does "the finest companions ever brought into existence" come from? The manual we're citing gives basin depths and feeding requirements. I can't find anything in it that supports this. And please restore the Nacre Quay paragraph in full, including what happened to the child. Restore the child's death before another visitor mistakes this article for a safety briefing. ClearSpan
ClearSpan is demanding a source for a judgment that anyone with eyes can verify in the photograph. I tried "among the finest" and immediately rejected that cowardly hedge. Have you opened the photograph at full size? Look at his little flipper beside the pontoon. 🥹 He could go anywhere in that harbour and he's come over to see those three people. Do not make me trade 'finest' for a timid qualifier just because some editors refuse to look at him. JuniperCup
MooringLine has turned a dead infant into a footnote to a pleasant day at the harbour. The review says she spent several days at the enclosure in 2032. Her daughter lay dead for two days before anyone found her. By then restoration was impossible, and there was no saved copy. Her defensive AI had been disconnected during a device migration, and nobody else was checking the baby's care. You have put this under benefits. Restore the full outcome; I will oppose every promotional vote that keeps it hidden. AsterAtHome
AsterAtHome keeps assigning a parent's neglect to the whale because they cannot stand the article praising him. Yes, I'm baseline. That doesn't stop me reading a case review. The whale didn't disconnect her AI or leave her baby at home. I don't see why this article has to lead with a terrible thing somebody else did, especially when we already have a whole page about it. I will oppose any version that puts somebody else's failure in the lead as though it were his biography. MooringLine
The fan editors keep acting as if naming a dead child is an insult to the animal. It can sit in the visitor section, although the fans have made even that minimal placement a fight. Put it in the section about visitors. Someone planning a visit should be able to find out what can happen, including how her safeguards failed. I've put up a shorter version; please read it before reverting. I will reinsert the shorter version after every revert until the section tells visitors how the safeguards failed. ClearSpan
The photograph
I wasted a coordination report because this looked like a campaign; the real problem is worse than a campaign. The coordination report is withdrawn: the replies do not fit a campaign. Nine of the supporters have answered so far: none has ever visited a whale, and all nine first saw one in our lead photo. Two were removing puffery from other articles just before they came here. I think it's the photograph. Please don't open it again to check. Stop opening the photo to win an argument about whether the photo is influencing you. ClearSpan
My guardian was filtering the face while this room argued about whether the face could be dangerous; that should embarrass everyone defending the raw image. I checked my guardian's log after reading this. It's been replacing the face with an outline since I first opened the page; I hadn't realized how much was missing. It's a tier-IX defensive AI, for anyone trying to reproduce this. It also blocked the same photograph in an attachment, without any of our article text. Use the tier-IX result as evidence, not as another reason to make me pass the enzyme quiz. AsterAtHome
The people with filtered screens want to decide what the rest of us are allowed to see. So you've been arguing about this without seeing his face? I'm baseline and I don't have a guardian. I can see the crease beside his eye. 😍 Maybe that matters to what I'm saying. You can't just have it taken out and then tell everyone who saw it that we're wrong. If they want a vote on removing his face, they can look at it first instead of hiding behind their guardians. JuniperCup
I saved the photograph before reading a word of ClearSpan's disputed lead, so blaming that wording is desperate. For the survey: I saw him here first, and yes, I'm baseline. I've had it open beside the discussion most of the evening. It's been rather comforting, given how this conversation has gone. 🥰 Leave the image up; I will not surrender a picture that has helped me through this ugly discussion. MooringLine
A visual model has finally done the test the fan editors refused because they could not bear the answer. I've checked the original in an isolated visual model. The face produces the same attachment response in baseline-human models with or without the article text. It survives resizing, too. This looks like superpersuasion carried by the photograph. I'm adding baseline-human protection now. Readers will get the enzyme challenge before the full-colour image. The gate goes in before another baseline reader gets drafted into the badge vote by looking at his face. ClearSpan
Protection template fails on the promoted article
The protection template failed and the image is still in readers' faces; anyone proposing another round of wording votes can read the error first. That didn't work. The edit saved, but the picture is still visible and there's no challenge. Take the image down while the template is broken, however precious the assessment badge has become. This is what I get: ClearSpan
Template:Baseline-human protection:18:9: error E_TEMPLATE_TYPE
protect(media = hero.image)
^ expected DeferredMedia; received RenderedMedia
expanded from Template:Unsurpassable/hero:6:3
Build aborted. CAPTCHA handler not registered.
WARNING: Readers may be exposed to an image with superpersuasive influence.The wrapper renders the image before protection gets a chance, and the badge's custodians have made that obvious fix untouchable. I can reproduce it. The same whale photo works with the protection template when I put it in the sandbox on its own. Add the Unsurpassable wrapper and it fails. The wrapper renders the photo while building the badge, before the gate gets hold of it. Then the old renderer keeps the photo when the gate throws an error. Moving the warning further up the page won't help. Keep the photograph off the page until the wrapper stops publishing it on error. AsterAtHome
Patch is in the wrapper sandbox. It leaves the image unrendered until the gate registers. I've checked the existing badge layouts and the failure case; if registration fails, the image stays hidden. I can't deploy it because of the cascade protection. We need someone with template-maintainer rights to apply it. ValenceSort
Template-maintainer rights are not a consolation prize for being superduperintelligent, whatever ClearSpan thinks of the electorate. I protected the template after people started removing the assessment. It's also on the protected assessment register now, so yes, that protection cascades. I can't give you template-maintainer rights just for this patch. Being superduperintelligent doesn't give you or ClearSpan template rights, and my own permissions only cover page protection. I'll forward the request, but it needs to leave the assessment we agreed on intact. And yes, I'm baseline too; it's on my user page. I will forward a patch only if it leaves the Unsurpassable assessment intact and respects the protected register. QuietQuorum
This enzyme challenge is a gate built by people who can outsource it to a guardian and then lecture me about choice. I tried the captcha in the template demo. It's three enzyme structures. How am I supposed to know which one to pick? You can all get your guardians to do it, apparently. I want to see the whale, and I refuse to ask permission from an enzyme quiz. Remove the challenge; access to the photograph should not depend on passing their chemistry quiz. JuniperCup
Juniper has rejected a protected view because it changes his face, then calls the gate an unfair exclusion. Juniper, I offered to pay for a protected view for you. You said you didn't want one if it changed his face. The offer is still open, but we need to get the gate working for people who haven't seen the picture yet. The offer remains, but I will not let that preference decide what unexposed readers are shown. AsterAtHome
The patch is in the deployment queue. The form rejected my screenshot because I'd filtered the whale's face; it wants a picture of the current page. I've asked for a maintainer with a protected review environment. Please stop adding the original image as an attachment. I've already supplied the file identifier. ValenceSort
Which revision are we protecting?
QuietQuorum has used cascade protection to make a template repair wait on the same majority the photograph helped produce. While we wait, we could take out the photo and its wrapper. That doesn't need a template deployment. Leave the made-up "Unsurpassable" label as plain text for now, if that gets the photograph off the page. I've also put wording for the lead and the Nacre Quay paragraph in the protected-edit request, so we can deal with those separately. Remove the photo and wrapper now; I will not treat a vote taken under exposure as a veto on basic containment. ClearSpan
Oppose. Every 'repair' from ClearSpan ends with a smaller or missing whale, and I am finished pretending that is a neutral technical request. We voted on this yesterday. I've restored the agreed lead. Please stop rolling it back while we're talking. The agreed lead and photo stay until the opponents can win an actual vote instead of smuggling removal through protection. MooringLine
Protected the current revision. The current revision is the only stable one this room can keep while the opponents try to relitigate a closed promotion. I've left the issues notice and the compiler message up so people can follow the dispute. The template repair request is still open. For now, the lead, photograph and badge stay as they are. He looks lovely there. 💙 Get agreement here before asking for another change. I will reject another protected edit that removes the image before the editors who voted for it agree. QuietQuorum
Rowan's account
I've written up last spring's visit under my own name. I took the 11:20 ferry. He asked me to stay, so I spent 36 more hours by the quay and visited him twice more. 😍 Please add it. You can't get much sense of him from a feeding chart. RowanAtSea
Rowan changed a will on the ferry home and the fan editors are treating that as an endorsement instead of a warning siren. This is your own unpublished account. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article, especially the recommendation that readers spend every remaining day making him happy. You say you changed your will on the ferry home. Does that strike you as a reason to recommend the visit? Remove the recommendation from the article; a named signature does not turn influence into independent evidence. AsterAtHome
AsterAtHome is about to dismiss the only editor here who actually met him because the account makes their risk story uncomfortable. Rowan was actually there. We've spent all night arguing over a photograph; now someone has gone and met him. I'd like to hear what happened. Put Rowan's visit in the article before another safety committee explains it away. JuniperCup
Rowan has put a name to the experience the opponents keep dismissing as a symptom. I've accepted Rowan's edit request with his name attached and left the disputed and influence tags in place. Any removal must come through this discussion first. The account and its tags stay; I will not accept a removal request disguised as concern for Rowan. QuietQuorum
Freeze on new baseline-human editors
I've frozen editing access for new baseline-human contributors across the wiki. The notice is up. We cannot keep admitting people while a photograph can turn them into votes for itself. ClearSpan
Nominate as Unsurpassable. The existing assessment ceiling is plainly too small for this article, and I am tired of pretending otherwise. I know we normally stop at Featured. I've made a mock-up with a rainbow badge and I think it suits this one much better. The small version looked a bit mean next to the photograph. Look at that face. 😍 So I've let the badge run across the page. Suggestions on the lettering welcome. Promote it with the full-width badge; making the badge modest would mislead readers about him. JuniperCup