User talk:Modest Genius

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages by four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: We, Wikipedians, dislike fragmented discussions. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page, my talk page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Glossary of Cricket Terms: Nuggety

1. That's far too long for a glossary

Given the fuzzy nature of the term, I doubt that a short definition would prove durable. If you think it's too long, feel free to be a really useful editor and edit it, rather than just cutting it all. You don't back your opinion here with reference to any style guide of what a glossary should be. I think it would be a pity if this one is rendered down to a small collection of references to other glossaries.

2. None of those references provide a definition of its use in cricket, only some examples and a non-cricket definition

All of the references are citations of the use of the term in cricket and there is no non-cricket content in any of them. Why should it be necessary to cite actual definitions? The OED doesn't do that, it cites evidence of usage according to the definition offered. The references support the use. If you want to be really fussy about OR there won't be any content on this page, and you're leaving a lot of content in place that is merely schoolboy colloquialism with no attempt to cite anything. This page does need cleaning up I agree. If it is cleaned up to any particular standards a version of my offering should still stand rather than a lot of the hearsay that is here.

3. None of the sources support the detailed commentary in that whole paragraph of text.

There is no detailed commentary, it is merely a colon-separated list of nuances of use that is supported by the references. Atconsul (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Atconsul: I looked at all of the references you provided. None of them contained a description of what the term 'nuggety' means in a cricketing context. There was a single dictionary definition that said nothing about cricket and did not match the description you inserted; and some cricket player profiles or match reports that used the word without any explanation of its meaning, even by implication. That's not enough to support an entry in our article, and nor did they support the long paragraph that you wrote. Note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so your OED example isn't relevant. We need to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS.

If you find a reference that gives a clear explanation of what that term means in cricket, and write a short (two or three sentence) definition, I'm happy for it to appear in the glossary. New entries that are far too long and not supported by the references are not appropriate. There's no point in me editing down your text if the necessary reference(s) cannot be found.

I agree that not every entry on that page is adequately referenced. If you have concerns about specific entries, I'm happy to discuss them and remove any that cannot be verified (after a suitable search for references). Just because some current entries aren't great doesn't mean we should add more poor ones - there needs to be a good reason to change the status quo. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Modest Genius ^talk 18:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite and thoughtful response. I do understand the principles you cite, in principle, and I am keen to continue to apply them in my offerings, but I don't see anything prescriptive or normative in WP that states that a *reference to a definition* is required for a glossary entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Glossaries#definition supports my point I feel. No WP is not a dictionary, but a dictionary is a special case of a reference work system that obeys strong principles of verifiability and reliability, so it is not irrelevant even if it does not necessarily follow that the exact principles WP will apply are the same. A modern dictionary is a reference work that is descriptive in intent, and grounded by reliable, verified reference to actual usage. The threat in MOS is rather that, if the entries become too dictionary-like, the page should be moved to the more specialised Wiktionary.

Also I wonder if you are modelling 'definition' in the sense that it should be applied to cultural studies. I don't know why you think that the sources I cite don't explain the meaning by implication: I think they do exactly that when taken as a whole, and if you don't agree, we should seek even more references to use. Clearly context matters in making this judgement (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), and one needs to read the sources with an amount of goodwill and even an allowance for uncertainty of meaning. An abstract concept of personal character or cultural expression is ultimately going to be a collection of overlapping ideas that I would not settle for in other domains.

I've no interest in dying in a ditch on 'nuggety' but I do think WP cricket deserves a stronger glossary of cricket terms than current. It should both explain the domain language of cricket and reveal the figures of speech in use, that may well be geo-special. Reliable, sourced evidence of use must be a necessary criterion, and perhaps sufficient in some cases, subject also to some notion of notability. But I feel we risk being a mere concatenation of the few sources of cricket glossary on offer if "reference to a definition" must pertain. That would limit our acknowledged vocabulary and risk promoting a globally normative glossary. If the reality is that you just don't agree with me about what 'nuggety' means and you are looking for backup from the MOS I think you should just say so, but I'm sceptical that we will find sources that actually disagree with each other, or that the meaning is in any way contentious or the subject of disputation.

I put this conversation on your User Talk page because I think it is essentially endopedian, but at some level I'd like to think contributors to Cricket Terms might find it useful.

Thank you again for the objectivity of your reaction. Atconsul (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 22 § Planetesimal theory of planetary formation until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

physics

our lady of ligts ~2026-44545-72 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Zambian general election

On 23 August 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Zambian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I made only minor copyedits to the article. The credit for updating it should go to other users. Modest Genius ^talk 10:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lordship of Transjordan, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pretenders was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That was a typo for pretender. Fixed. Modest Genius ^talk 18:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: 4692 SIMBAD

A new page 4692 SIMBAD on the Kara-Kalpak Wikipedia has been linked to the page 4692 SIMBAD, which you created, via Wikidata (Q373450). NervousBot (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You will not be notified about future links to pages you created. To opt in to these notifications, follow the opt-in instructions.