Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
 
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 
story · music · places

Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

edit
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
 
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Haupt garden

edit
 

A tag has been placed on Haupt garden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

not needed, inconsistent with Enid A. Haupt Garden and Garden

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

Gadfium has reverted the (test?) nomination. Sdkbtalk 21:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Growth News, April 2024

edit

18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Adnankhan2 (12:33, 27 April 2024)

edit

hello Sdkb, can you please tell me whats the criteria are for uploading image? --Adnankhan2 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Adnankhan2, see Wikipedia:Uploading images, and let me know if you have any more specific questions (it's not fully clear what you mean by "criteria"). Cheers, Sdkbtalk 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Nyttend
 

  Bureaucrat changes

  Nihonjoe
 

  CheckUser changes

  Joe Roe

  Oversight changes

  GeneralNotability

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

edit

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question from Oanvoovad (15:58, 8 May 2024)

edit

Hello, I have made a translation of an article. How can it be published? --Oanvoovad (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Oanvoovad! It looks like you've already published Simão da Silva Ferraz de Lima e Castro by moving it from draft space to article space. It will be reviewed as part of our new page patrol process likely sometime over the next month or so, so be on the lookout for feedback from the reviewer (who may move it back to draft space temporarily if there are concerns that need to be addressed). Cheers, Sdkbtalk 16:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see. It doesn't seem to be available when searching from google, and the link to the Portuguese article in the 'add languages' section seems to have been lost. Perhaps I've done something wrong... Oanvoovad (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
(talk page watcher) @Oanvoovad: I've connected the article to the Wikidata item that the Portuguese article was linked to, so hopefully there should now be a link to that article from the English article :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 17:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding appearing on Google, that'll happen once the new page patroller reviews the article. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks all. Oanvoovad (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concern regarding Draft:The Rounds

edit

  Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Rounds, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question from Johnsamuels0 (01:48, 12 May 2024)

edit

i have made a sandbox about Dr. Dawood Suleiman Alsaadi, when will you think it will be reviewed? --Johnsamuels0 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnsamuels0, per the notice, it may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Sdkbtalk 01:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cafeteria

edit

Ahhhhh, okay, that makes sense. Frankly, I suspect that's the explanation for a lot of things that make me go hmmmm... Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The CTOP template

edit

Hi there. Out of curiosity, did you ever finish Template_talk:Contentious_topics/talk_notice#When_an_article_deals_with_multiple_contentious_topics?

I am a bit rusty at templates, but would be happy to look at it if it's still blocked for some reason. I messaged you on Discord earlier as well, if that's a more convenient discussion place for you Soni (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Soni; thanks for following up about that! (I generally prefer to collaborate on-wiki just so everything is public.)
I did code a solution in the sandbox, which can be seen in the testcases. It'd be great to get it over the finish line, and would love your help if you're interested! It seems these are the remaining steps:
  • There have been a few changes to {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} since I made the sandbox last year; those should be ported over so that the sandbox is synced up.
  • It seems that there were some special use cases with the gmo, a-i, tt topic areas that need to be handled. It looks like Sideswipe9th had some thoughts on those and might be willing to help with that.
  • I'm not a specialist in contentious topics designations, and given how complex of an area it is, I think it'd be helpful for someone who is to look everything over before it goes live. I know that Tamzin was involved in contentious topics reform, and that Oshwah has contributed to interface changes in this area, so they might be good editors to ping.
I hope that provides a bit of a roadmap! I don't have the capacity to take those steps myself currently, and may not for a while, but if you want to dive in, I'll be happy to clarify anything that's unclear and to chime in if you hit any snags. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 17:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RE:

edit

Thanks for your concern but what is the purpose of that MOS tool if it is cosmetic only? Cosmetic only has been defined as reordering reference fields if no others are added or a mdy/dmy date update if no further changes. That change you referenced was something I have done for years. The purpose of those changes are to get the reference date fields and other dates in the article up to date. That is the whole point of the script and tool. Not arguing because I do see where what I mentioned above and can only be comestic. I do not do those. If I preview the edit and nothing is changed, I do not publish. Red Director (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

See the following when you get a chance: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates, months, and years. Those changes solely are to make all the dates on the articles match the MDY/DMY. A lot of those changes have dates that are deemed unacceptable by that page. The script makes those default numbered dates to a country-based date. Red Director (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Red Director: Unless I missed something, all the dates changed in the edit I came across were to citations. Those are already formatted by the {{Use mdy dates}} template to match the page's citation style, regardless of how they appear in the source code. Thus, there is no change to the visible output for readers in changing the source code, which is why I characterized them as cosmetic. Does that help clarify? Sdkbtalk 20:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense from a reader view point. From an editors' view point, it does help with dates having names instead of a bunch of numbers stacked along. Previous runs of the date tool from years cause the coded ref dates to mismatch on date format. A user a while back tagged a lot of articles with an update without actually updating them so the audits are off really badly. Cosmetic is defined on the ProveIt Tool as nothing else being added or reference field orders just being reorganized as cosmetic. I just have only received mainly positive feedback over the years on that. If you want me to stop doing those, I can, but those edits I feel actually do serve a purpose for aiding editing. Red Director (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Red Director:, I cannot find the ProveIt tool's definition of cosmetic, but regardless of what it says (and ProveIt's definition should be changed if it's wrong), the governing one is the policy definition of cosmetic changes, which defines them clearly, and makes clear that edits that impact only the wikitext an editor sees are considered cosmetic. If you wish to continue making edits like that, you could check at WP:BOTN to see whether there is consensus for them, but my prediction is that they will be deemed cosmetic changes and therefore discouraged unless they come along with something substantive. Sdkbtalk 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the information. I will abide by that definition on those. Red Director (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Redirect question

edit

Hello again, just need to pick your brain on another topic when you get a chance. When redirects are created, does it make since to sync the talk page to the talk page redirect as well? The feature on the redirect helper tool provides that. Also, some redirect talk pages have banners. Do those need to be there? Best wishes. Red Director (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Red Director; good question! The redirect guideline advises that, where they exist, talk pages of redirects should be tagged with {{Talk page of redirect}}. However, that template's documentation makes clear that talk pages of redirects should never be created solely to tag them with it. The rationale behind this, to my understanding, is that talk pages of redirects don't really serve any purpose: Readers won't encounter them because they'll always be directed to the destination article and its talk page, and for editors, any discussion pertaining to the redirect would be better centralized to its destination's talk page (or WP:RfD). Therefore, all their existence does is add complexity (and surface area for vandalism, etc.).
Regarding banners, the principle of recording every piece of information only once indicates to me that we should not be attempting to tag redirect talk pages with them, as that would create a bunch of duplication (and thus complexity, syncing issues, etc.); it's better for any editor or tool to just assume that whatever project banners apply to a redirect's target also apply to the redirect itself. The only time I'd add banners to the redirect would be when they apply only to that redirect, not its destination (for instance, Campus of Foobar University, a redirect to Foobar University, might be tagged with {{WikiProject Architecture}}), similar to how we categorize redirects.
For all of this, if you're planning to do any large-scale editing, you could check with WT:REDIRECT, where folks more specialized in redirects than me might be able to provide thoughts. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 20:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response. The redirect-helper tool allows for the creation of the talk pages with no other content but redirecting the talk page of the redirect to the main article's talk page. Is that alright to do using the tool? That process only creates the bridge and does not have any tags or banners. I do not plan to do anything major. Basic redirect creation with the new tool allows for instant sync if the editor wishes. Red Director (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure about that — I'd ask at WT:REDIRECT or at the tool's talk page. I'm guessing you're not the only one who has had that question, so the tool's interface should be improved to provide a clearer link to the applicable guidance. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 21:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contra dance user box

edit

@Sdkb, you might like this. I created a userbox for contra dancing wikipedians. User:UBX/contra_dancing Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cool to see, @Paulmlieberman! It looks like there unfortunately may be some issues with the image, though. The one you're using, File:Contra dancers right-hand star.jpg, is a low-resolution version of the PNG version, which will be deleted soon if a valid license tag is not added. The JPG version is tagged as public domain due to publication before 1929, which is not compatible with the stated 2019 creation date. Do we know that the illustration came from a contra dance book published before 1929? We'll need to confirm the original source in order to keep using it. Sdkbtalk 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I've never been able to navigate the wikimedia image upload rules and regs. I don't know anything about the image, except that it appears on websites of several local dance groups. I grabbed it from sierracontra.org.
Can you help me clean this up?
Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, no worries! I tagged those images for deletion and swapped in a different, freely licensed one. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 18:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Simplifying CSD

edit

Given your work with simplifying welcome templates, I was wondering if you had any ideas about the speedy deletion notices we give users when a page of theirs has been csd'd? I can't help but think there ought be something we could do better in regards to that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clovermoss; nice to hear from you! I don't work in CSD enough to have super strong views here, but happy to muse a bit, and perhaps that'll give you or others ideas for improvements.
Starting broadly, when designing a talk page notice, we always want to think about the effect we hope for it to have. For CSD notices, we ideally want them to give instruction to the user about how to edit the page to turn it into a notable article, or, if that's not possible, to get them to understand/accept the decision not to have it enough that they don't keep trying (a maintenance burden) or leave angry at us (and become vandals or stop donating or badmouth our reputation).
There are some barriers when it comes to CSDs. For one thing, anyone encountering one has already failed to follow instructions well enough to avoid a tag, so we're not dealing with the most competent user group. Further, by the time a notice is received, the page has often been deleted, and if someone's not able to make a page good enough to avoid a CSD tag, they're also probably not able to navigate the process of contacting the deleting admin and asking for it to be restored so that they can work on it more. Further further, the nature of the notice I think will communicate to users more (some other editor used this sort of language, but I forget who) "nice try, but game over, you failed Wikipedia, bye," rather than the intended message of "this isn't currently suitable for our site, but with improvements X Y Z we could reevaluate".
So given all that, I think it's sorta already too late by the point someone gets a CSD notice — our article wizard (if they even used it) has failed to get them to make a non-CSDable page, and now they've invested time into writing something that they're going to be angry to see deleted and unsure how to resurrect. The better intervention point would have been through a better article wizard, which would have either gotten them to realize the subject isn't suitable and quit or to make a suitable draft.
Looking more specifically at some of the CSD notices, they have the problem that a lot of groups of notices have, in that they're written broadly in a way that tries to cover every circumstance but ultimately comes across as non-personalized and bureaucratic. For an article on Jane Smith, there's a difference between the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important and the way a human might write, the article does not indicate how or why she is important. It probably wouldn't be worth the complexity it'd require to figure out and customize for the subject's pronouns in order to use she correctly, but we want it to sound a little more like that. Certainly the "or" statement in real person or group of people, like any "or" statement in a notice, is a dead giveaway that it's boilerplate.
Also, there's an emphasis on policy that isn't useful for the recipient — This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion doesn't have to be emphasized by placing it in the second sentence, and Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time would read much better as The article may be deleted at any time. And while we're tightening language, I also notice that the info is repeated later (be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay), which should absolutely be avoided, as the longer a notice is the less likely folks will be to actually read it.
I'll leave it there for now, but happy to continue chatting about this! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 03:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I guess my concern is that they tend to be huge walls of text. I don't think it's impossible for someone whose received a csd notice to eventually figure things out. Maybe it's unlikely but I don't think it should stop us from trying to improve the templates. I'd say the most important ones to focus on would probably be U5 and G11, because that's what I've seen the most in the queue. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For U5, I notice that the notice advises going to WP:RFUD, but RFUD itself says that it should not be used for U5 requests. That paradox should be resolved.
For G11, assuming it's being used correctly (and I'm not sure it always is), I think the chance of turning the recipient into a productive editor is approximately zero, as they are fundamentally not here. In that case, the language there should be tailored with the primary goal of getting them out of our hair as cleanly as possible. Sdkbtalk 16:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RfA debrief

edit

Hi Sdkb, thanks for writing the RfA debrief. I found your point on conferences and building trust there interesting. It's a topic that has crossed my mind quite a few times, and instinctually it makes me unsure, as I wonder how conferences might muddle the perception of on-wiki work, positively and/or negatively. For example, it comes at a slight cross-purpose to the anonymity and gender/pronoun point you make (which I happen to agree with and also try to practice, although I've never to my recollection seen anyone else say they do this before). Anyway, it's something that I would be interested in reading a fuller write-up on at some point, if there is more you have in mind on this brief bullet (noting I have also seen your comments on various pages about conference funding before). Best, CMD (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found your debrief interesting too. It's also a reminder that I should probably start drafting mine out 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
😅 Sdkbtalk 15:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad you found the debrief interesting, and happy to muse on this!
Wikipedia is fundamentally a weird environment — I cannot think of any other situation in which I could have a fairly deep working relationship with someone and yet know them only by their username, with no clue where they live or what they look like. It's also limited to text communication, which lacks all of the additional information that you'd get even from someone's tone of voice and facial expressions over video chat, let alone in person. Those elements make it a hard environment in which to build trust. One possible lens for why fears of sockpuppetry have come up at several recent RfAs is that, beyond the (understandable) skittishness post-Eostrix, there's a baseline (also understandable) hesitation to trust the internet stranger. By de-anonymizing editors, conferences can help break through that.
They also work well as RfA breeding grounds because they concentrate a ton of interaction with a group of editors over a short time, and because someone's very presence at the conference is evidence of their commitment to the project.
The community has a hesitancy around doing Wikipedia-related activities off-wiki. Part of that is for justifiable reasons — we've seen the difficulty reconciling policies like WP:Outing with Wikipediocracy and even Discord, and further down the off-wiki path is the affiliate world with all of its ineffectualities. But another part of it is just that Wikipedia talk pages are our home comfort zone, and sometimes we need to push ourselves to step out of it (this applies also to e.g. emailing article subjects). The purist "everything should be public on-wiki all the time" view has limits, particularly around things like RfA preparation. Overall, I view conferences as an instance where activity off-wiki can directly lead to benefits on-wiki, and we should embrace that.
That said, there are certainly tradeoffs/risks. Bias in who ends up at conferences is a big one. The existence of scholarships (where they are given out...) removes some of the socioeconomic barrier, but even so, people need PTO and the ability to travel to be able to attend. And then there's the geographic factor — due to systemic bias, a disproportionate number of admins/functionaries are in North America, so editors who get to attend WCNA have access to more possible nominators than those whose regional conference is, say, WikiConference India. And as you allude, the de-anonymizing that happens at conferences also raises the possibility of discrimination based on ethnicity, race, physical attractiveness, etc. compared to online.
Given that, I would certainly never want to see conferences become the only path to adminship. But in our present world, where we just need more admins, I do think we ought to make more use of them as one option. Does all that help speak to your thoughts? Sdkbtalk 06:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the considered musings. Your use of "purist" is especially noted, as during my drafting of the above message I at one point had "this might be a bit purist" or similar. Alternatively, perhaps I am institutionalised into the existing system, as I found the equalising power of the anonymity an attractive feature in my early days here. I have not considered that trust aspect before. I do trust some editors on-wiki purely due to their writing, but thinking about it now it does not remotely scale up to the needs of RfA as we are all working within our small areas (perhaps also on immediate reflection one of the reasons I hesitate to contribute to most RfAs).
I find myself agreeing with the thrust of your description about off-wiki activities. I have also found them fundamentally weird, having first learnt how everything works through activities on-wiki. I would posit an addition to your thoughts on regional conferences, that perhaps a big difference between your North American experience and mine (non-North American experiences) is that the North American experience may focus a lot more on en.wiki, while other regions have a a much more diverse focus on various language projects. Would this ring true? If so, that might be a reinforcing element of the systematic bias you mention.
Despite all this, I have enjoyed the few off-wiki meetings I have attended, and really came away feeling I'd learnt and met some great people. There is also the moral boost of actually meeting others who do similar activities and face similar challenges; the social aspect of editing doesn't really happen much on here. I would be interested in whether and how much the conferences do affect nominations. I do again suspect the North American experience may be quite different in this regard, and certainly isn't something I'd thought about in my initial reflections to your debrief. Best, CMD (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you're correct that WCNA had a fairly strong focus on English Wikipedia, which I suspect might not be true of other conferences. Sdkbtalk 15:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also think it's a really interesting point about conferences and scholarships. I've never attended one, because they're so distant and expensive – and that's speaking as someone who could probably get my work or an external grant to cover it. In academia, though people aren't pseudonymous, we do maintain a lot of working relationships at a distance, through written communication (I've written papers with people I've never met, for example), and in-person conferences are an essential an essential social release valve. The onus really should be on the WMF to actively fund and encourage participation from the communities as well as the affiliates.
Relatedly, though it's no longer a very popular view, I still think there is a lot to be said for editing under your real identity and "humanising" your user page with a photo and personal details – recognising of course that it is a privilege to be able to do so, and that those who can't should not be in any way disadvantaged. I think it was a mistake, inherited from early internet hacker culture, to make pseudonymity the default on Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually I think Wikipedia did used to be more "humanised" before and became more anonymous with time. I've seen a bunch of old-timers with their photos out (like you) but hardly any newbies who are that way. Everyone wants to be anonymous on the internet - now more than ever before. If I edit under my real name I might have have Hindu nationalists on my ass (and possibly outside my window) in no time, even though most of my content work is hardly controversial. A majority of the world's population lives under such regimes, although maybe not the core enwiki editor base. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 13:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Graham Beards
 

  Bureaucrat changes

 
 

  Oversight changes

  Dreamy Jazz

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Question from Boikemisetso mokase (20:24, 6 June 2024)

edit

Hello 👋 How do I create a good story --Boikemisetso mokase (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Boikemisetso mokase. I'm not sure what you mean by "story" — if you are referring to articles, see Help:Your first article. If English is not your native language, you may wish to contribute in the wiki for your native language. Sdkbtalk 20:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Reuben Solo

edit

On 8 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reuben Solo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during a comedy routine Reuben Solo drew a graph plotting the audience's reaction to his routine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reuben Solo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Reuben Solo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A brainstorm: how reducing banner clutter (re: VA merger) links up with an article table generator

edit

Your ideas about reducing banner clutter in the Vital article Tfd merger proposal (which I only just now discovered) resonated with me, especially the part where you proposed the concise version, with your example of   VA-3, and I wanted to link this up with something I've been thinking about and get your feedback on it, as there may be some beneficial cross-pollination avenues here.

I have long been thinking about how to efficiently represent article page characteristics (such as article quality, length, protection level, etc.) so that WikiProjects and other similar pages can have lists or tables of articles and economically represent such metadata without heaps of repetitive text bloating the list or table rows. This led to creation of Template:Article attribute decoration which uses icon images or unicode characters to graphically encode such metadata.

Somewhere along the way, I discovered Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist working on a table summarizing which language Wikipedias have articles on Transgender history or trans rights, to be added at some point as a monitor or progress tracker perhaps at the WP:LGBT WikiProject or somewhere, and I proposed some ideas that might be useful to her table idea using the {{Aad}} template. Since then, there's been an on-and-off collaboration going on, and the single-table idea has morphed into more of a platform idea to assist editors who want to develop any kind of table or list of related articles as a tracker for their WikiProject. Having short symbols or icons, like your VA symbol, fits right in with this scheme.

And that's where you come in. I think you are ideally placed to be a third member of a small dev team geared to developing some tools or a platform or whatever it ends up being, to lower the bar of entry for others who might like to build tables or lists to track or monitor groups of articles, in the way that, say, Trans articles by region2 tracks and compares trans history and trans rights articles across Wikipedias. For a glimpse of the power of the (then current) version, see the (surprisingly brief) wikicode, and the config file at {{Trans articles for region/config}}.

I've been away for a bit and just got back, so YFNS may have updated it or taken it off in a different direction by now, but it's still very much a work in progress, afaik. Anyhow, if any of this intrigues you, I know I'd welcome your participation as you have a lot of strengths in envisioning what would be most useful for a project and coming up with just the right approach, and critiquing current ones or seeing the essential points in something of this nature, and I think YFNS would agree. Have a look around, and see what you think; would love to hear your thoughts about it. YFNS may have some newer/better links for you. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mathglot! Great to hear from you, and that seems like interesting work!
My overall view of icons is that they present a tradeoff — on the one hand, they take up less space and are cleaner/easier to understand at a glance than text, but on the other, if you don't know what they represent, they're confusing, which can add to the barriers newcomers (or any of us, for newly introduced icons like the contentious topics one you included) face. Tooltips can partially mitigate that; I see you've used them for some of the icons already.
There's some existing infrastructure at {{Icon}} and related pages that it might be good to check to make sure there's no template duplication going on/integrate your new system into the existing documentation to make it discoverable.
Good luck with this work! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 17:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The best-designed icons are self-evident or nearly so, but as with international road signage, they generally require a legend that describes them, and that is the approach I am following. If iconic enough, the description is easily associated with the icon and thenceforth they are no longer needed. Come to think of it, I should have the template generate a legend upon request as well. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit

 Template:Escape page link from within has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concern regarding Draft:Chester Whitmore

edit

  Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chester Whitmore, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question from DandelionFluff (04:16, 12 June 2024)

edit

Hello! I just made some edits to the page of Lynn Conway. Sounds like there's a lot of that happening right now as she died over the weekend. Just wanted to make sure I did all right! (I've done some editing in the past, but I just established a username.) --DandelionFluff (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @DandelionFluff! Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for checking in! Your edit looks fine to me at a quick glance. Biographies of recently deceased persons often see a lot of editing activity; feel free to edit boldly, and if there are any issues another editor watching the page will be able to help out. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! DandelionFluff (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Concern regarding Draft:Longform.org

edit

  Hello, Sdkb. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Longform.org, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Editnotice/doc#Namespace key Off-topic

edit

At 03:25, 17 June 2024 in [1], you undid my {{off topic}} tag, saying it was an "unexplained tag." However, I already explained it 2 hours ago at 1:39, 17 June 2024‎ in [2]. Since you do not feel the section is off-topic, could you explain, on the actual documentation page, the relevance of all those namespace IDs? 184.146.170.127 (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Generally, editors are expected to explain their edits in the edit summary (which can take the form of see [wikilink to talk page thread]). I did not see your talk page comment and did not understand the removal, thus the revert. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 19:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Men's colleges

edit

Hi there - I see you cc'ed me. Is everything all good? It seems like you did some redirects but I don't quite work a ton on that part of Wikipedia. As you can see I've been trying to work cleaning up the page and also giving more nuance to the incorrect assumption that Catholic (and other religious) seminaries are always men's only colleges. The reality is some are, some aren't. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jjazz76! Thanks for checking in and apologies I didn't explain further in my summary of the edit. I created List of men's colleges in the United States as a redirect to Men's colleges in the United States § List of men's colleges a while back. I recently noticed that a bot tagged the redirect as broken (no longer going to a valid target section name), and that the page no longer had that section as a result of your reorganization, so I removed the section link. Everything is good; the ping was just so you're aware. When doing major restructuring of a page, it can often be a good idea to check the incoming links (available under the tools menu) to make sure that nothing is being messed up. Cheers, Sdkbtalk 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Thanks! I will definitely do that in the future. And thanks for noticing/fixing it on the backend! Jjazz76 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:Newspaper of record

edit

 Template:Newspaper of record has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question from Kang Ticino X Fabi on User:Kang Ticino X Fabi (21:13, 23 June 2024)

edit

Hi --Kang Ticino X Fabi (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Floquengrump

edit

I don't actively object, but I still ... I guess "passively" object to people altering the way I chose to add myself. As far as I know, there is no policy, guideline, essay, or even good reason not to add the vote count. I certainly didn't boldly add it for others, without their OK, even though I think it's useful. Yet you and someone else (who I won't look up to avoid getting annoyed again) felt fine just overruling my choice. It's not like I accidentally did it and you're fixing it (for example, I love it when people fix my near-constant screwups). I know it wasn't the intent, but it sure felt disrespectful. I'm honestly not sure if it's a problem with your approach or mine. Probably mine; I'm increasingly annoyed at more and more stuff I see here. Anyway, the "Floq" part i don't actually care about, so feel free to change to "Floquenbeam" if you prefer. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Diff for reference) Thanks for the note, Floq; that's helpfully clarifying. Until pretty recently, the debriefs page had a mix of links to debriefs and transclusions of debriefs, which I found suboptimal as it gave unfair prominence to some over others and just made it harder to navigate the page. So myself and a few others discussed and arrived at the format now used. I'd say the reason for using only the percentage support rather than that and also the !vote counts is (a) that it's more concise (while still communicating the degree to which an RfA was contentious) and (b) that another editor didn't want it to replicate the format of WP:RFAY too closely. It's not the biggest decision (which is to say that we could easily have gone with something different), but once we have a format, the reason to use it consistently is just to make the page more easily scannable (combined with a tidying impulse, which, uh, is a rather common trait among Wikimedians  ). I think the other editor and I assumed you'd just miscopied the format rather than deliberately deviating from it.
Overall, the formatting stuff is minor compared to just ensuring that debriefs are listed — I enjoyed reading yours and am glad that others visiting the debriefs page will be able to discover it! Cheers, Sdkbtalk 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hi Sdkb, hope you're well. I've just cleaned up Musopen, which really took off after funding from a Kickstarter campaign. I'm trying to link to two Kickstart links from 10+ years ago, which include important information on the nature of the projects. Alas, it seems the links are on Wikipedia's blacklist. Is there anyway around this? Aza24 (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aza! I think MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist may be what you're looking for? Beyond that, I'm not sure; good luck with your efforts! Sdkbtalk 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, I think so, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Backstory to Special:Diff/1231608002

edit

I don't have a strong opinion about the edit either way, but to provide the backstory to my edit that you reverted: I added the additional text because that page is transcluded in another page (WP:REFBEGIN) where another editor redundantly added a link to WP:RSP in the "See also" section (which I reverted) despite the link being in the transcluded text, which led me to wonder if the transcluded text needed to be clearer. Apparently not! Biogeographist (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thomas A. Moore moved to draftspace

edit

Thanks for your contributions to Thomas A. Moore. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and there is another person with the same name at ASUA who has a high h-factor (if there are no overlapping papers) so there is nothing to demonstrate his publication notability. His page shows no significant, peer recognition awards. Please establish these and go the AfC route rather than creating it directly.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ldm1954, as mentioned in the edit summary when I created the page, the relevant notability criterion is WP:NPROF #5, as he holds an endowed chair. I am reverting the move, and suggest you familiarize yourself with or check the applicable SNGs before draftifying in the future, as not all editors will know to revert and draftifying can bite them or deprive us of notable content. Sdkbtalk 13:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please read the recent discussions on academic notability #5, just having an endowed chair does not qualify. As many have said, someone who is notable has many other achievements such as peer recognition APS fellowships, FRS, major awards, high h-factor etc. His page has nothing, and as I said above there is no other proof. I will hold off temporarily from an AfD to let you add the material requested. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks; I am on vacation until July 5, but I'll do a deeper dive for sources once I return. Sdkbtalk 20:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day!

edit

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 
 

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous


Nomination of Thomas A. Moore for deletion

edit
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas A. Moore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas A. Moore until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

check ur dms

edit

jp×g🗯️ 20:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:Motley Coffeehouse

edit
 

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Motley Coffeehouse".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:Hunan Grand Theatre

edit
 

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hunan Grand Theatre".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:Donald Bentley

edit
 

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Donald Bentley".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:White Pearl

edit
 

Hello, Sdkb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "White Pearl".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect Bot Changes

edit

Hey @Sdkb. One of your bots made a change to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Blackburn_Historical_Plaques to correct some dates to Wikipedia standard format. The affected text was taken from the plaques in question, so the changes made the text inaccurate.

I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so asked in Teahouse if there was a way to protect some content from automated bot alteration (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Scooby359-20240714172200-How_to_protect_content_from_bots). They suggested raising it with yourself to let you know of the issue, and see if there's any way to resolve it.

I've now been made aware of the {{nobots}} tag. Is there any other way I could flag this content to protect it from bot alteration?

Thanks, Chris. Scooby359 (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Scooby359! Thanks for raising this. Those edits were part of the general fixes set, which is a collection of normally uncontroversial edits that my or many other bots will make in the course of other edits. Normally, GENFIX would recognize and ignore text in quotes, but in this case there are no quotation marks so it did not identify the quotes as such.
@Mathglot's advice to use {{as written}} on the quotes rather than {{nobots}} on the whole article is solid, as it's a much more precise way to target the issue.
Cheers, Sdkbtalk 14:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sdkb That's great. I've changed the page to use {{as written}} so hopefully should be ok going forward. Thanks for explaining and teaching me something new!
Cheers, Chris Scooby359 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply