User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 55
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with 
Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
Muboshgu (submissions) and 
Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by 
The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. TFD (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Your vote has been removed by the volunteer.[1] TFD (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Possible compromise resolution | |
| The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 04 March 2013
- News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm
- Featured content: Slow week for featured content
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
National Register Information System at AFD
Because the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System and the page's creator have just been interaction-banned, I've closed this discussion. Because it's not fair to participants like you to force you to start all over again, I've reopened it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System (2nd nomination), and I've copied your comments over there. Feel free to participate further over there. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 March 2013
- From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger
- News and notes: Finance committee updates
- Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes
- Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns
- WikiProject report: Setting a precedent
- Technology report: Article Feedback reversal
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Kingston Road
Kingston Road (disambiguation) redirects to Kingston Road so I've changed the link back.--Launchballer 11:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Intentional links to disambiguation pages are supposed to use the form with "(disambiguation)" regardless of whether it is a redirect. Please revert yourself. older ≠ wiser 11:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- What, even if the link was piped (i.e. [[Kingston Road|Kingston Road (disambiguation)]])?--Launchballer 11:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, the link should go to the form with "(disambiguation)". In What links here, this differentiates intentional links to the page that do not need to be fixed from mistaken links. older ≠ wiser 11:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- What, even if the link was piped (i.e. [[Kingston Road|Kingston Road (disambiguation)]])?--Launchballer 11:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
KING
hi man, i know the band KING personally so all the information i put up is legit. please dont delete my hard work. i know these guys!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetrapak3 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's nice, but anything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable and especially any details regarding living persons. older ≠ wiser 14:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
"Black Jack"
How can I properly list the song "Black Jack" by Baciotti in the Black Jack disambiguation page?
Ctempire (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any article that mentions the song? It looks like there is not even any article for the artist or the album, so it is doubtful that a individual song warrants inclusion. Disambiguation pages are navigational aides for existing Wikipedia content, not directories of possible content. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
- News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee
- WikiProject report: Making music
- Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm
- Arbitration report: Richard case closes
- Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Removed information about cat: slang for a man
If you remove information about cat which is slang for a man, you must also remove information about chick in which it may refer to slang for a woman.
Thank you for your interest in Meteor (disambiguation), Bkonrad. I note that you reverted my addition of "* Meteor, the visible streak of light from a meteoroid or micrometeoroid, heated and glowing from entering the Earth's atmosphere, as it sheds glowing material in its wake.", noting that it was already listed. I am completely open to the possibility that I can't find what's right in front of my nose, but in the scientific-type entries, see Meteoroid and Meteorite, which are not the same, there is no mention of Meteor. Perhaps you could paste the pertinent text in a reply, here, so I can see what I missed. Otherwise, perhaps you would consider restoring my contribution. Yours in good faith, User:HopsonRoad 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The primary topic for the term meteor is given at the very top of the page. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- So it is! Thanks, User:HopsonRoad 21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
- WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh
- Featured content: One and a half soursops
- Arbitration report: Two open cases
- News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews
- Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Syntactic predicate
Hi, you have changed 'parsers'-> 'formal grammar' in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predicate&diff=547703689&oldid=547673267. Might be formal grammar sounds more important but we had no syntactic predicates when studied it. Syntactic predicates appear in parser technology, when you try to build one. The predicates are useful to guide the parser telling which branch it should take. Actually, I think that the Syntactic predicate article must point this out. Why do you say that it is a part of formal grammar instead? --Javalenok (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I merely updated the disambiguation entry to match the lead text in the linked article. If there is something that needs to be clarified, the target article should be updated. Also, each entry on a disambiguation page should have only one blue link. If there is a distinct topic covered by the parsing article that is ambiguous with the term predicate, then perhaps a separate entry might be appropriate. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Alba
My instinct was to revert as you've done ... but unfortunately that editor has moved what was at Alba to Alba (name). Undiscussed move of a long-established article with many incoming links - I've put in a request at Technical Requests to have both moves reverted (he's moved the dab page too). There could be a discussion whether Scotland's ancient name is or is not primary usage, but it's not uncontroversial. PamD 11:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
About 8
I'm here to warn you please do not move these two Operating Systems to "See also". IF YOU DO THAT, I WILL CALL SYS-OPS TO BAN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! Applist (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 April 2013
- Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Special: FAQs
- Featured content: What the ?
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 April 2013
- Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry
- WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes
- News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer
- Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History
- Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry
- Technology report: Testing week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Jacob Merritt Howard.png missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)The Signpost: 15 April 2013
- WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa
- News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops
- Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 April 2013
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention
- News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag
- Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea
- Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban
- Technology report: A flurry of deployments
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
PROD tags should not be replaced
Hi. This edit of yours to Los Teke Teke was improper: once a PROD tag has been removed by anyone, including the article author, for any reason or none, it may not be replaced - see WP:PROD#Objecting. The point is that PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions, to save unnecessary work at AfD, but if someone removes the PROD template the deletion is evidently not uncontroversial, and any further deletion proposal must be done by AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletion
Notify author/project: == Proposed deletion of Los Teke Teke ==
The article Los Teke Teke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no sign or source of notability. Poorly written. Not encyclopedic. WP:Fart
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Timestamp: 20130428194656 19:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Teke Teke 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
County government in the United States
You had recommended that someone start an article titled County government in the United States and now that it exists, the reactionaries are proposing to merge it away. Please see: Talk:Local government in the United States. I think it would be a great loss.Greg Bard (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- @ Bkonrad Any reason why you don't like the mentioning of the models and edited them out? To me it merely opened up an opportunity to explain the differences in the Virginia model, the Pennsylvania model and the New England model. Something I could have done, once I had a bit more time. Or if someone else didn't. It's a great level 101 way to open up education on why exactly our county governments are structured the way they are.Redddbaron (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- It seemed out of place and partially redundant with the last sentence of preceding paragraph. And the source provided did not actually support the statement (it was on other pages in the same site, but that is a rather sloppy sort of citation). I don't object to describing these different models more clearly, but a somewhat cryptic, unsourced, one-sentence statement isn't very helpful. older ≠ wiser 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)