Books & Bytes – Issue 51Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

  • New library partners
    • SAGE Journals
    • Elsevier ScienceDirect
    • University of Chicago Press
    • Information Processing Society of Japan
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

PokeEdit

Hey Nikki ... I think everything at WP:FASA has "matured", for whenever you have a chance to look. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

CMRIEdit

I've been doing some heavy editing recently of the CMRI page. I see you've been undoing some of my work, so I'd like to see your thoughts on the direction of the changes. I don't want to waste my time if my work is just going to be undone. It looks like someone put some flags on the overall CMRI article, and they weren't specific so I have no idea where they saw the bigger issues. I'm curious what secondary sources would be acceptable to you, since just about everyone on the group is a primary source, so it would be nearly impossible to make a wiki page without using some primary sources. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi G4wa5r4gasag, generally speaking we want to keep Wikipedia articles based primarily on reliable independent secondary sources. I'd suggest in this case that strength of sourcing is particularly important for material that is potentially contentious, such as the Criticisms section, or involving analysis or synthesis, such as the sections on changes in the post-Schuckardt period. I'd also suggest that in the absence of secondary sourcing calling out specific individuals (particularly ones still living) should be avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons are allowed and I've tried to give minimal information on living persons and their relationship to the group, such as noting that they are a priest in the group. I'll pause my edits and allow you or anyone else to take a fresh look and delete or flag anything in particular that needs sourcing. There are pretty good sources for the time period of 1967 to 1989 (I've requested numerous newspaper articles that I haven't yet posted, but this should be possible soon), but then much of the source material drops off after 1989. Something I think is very important to keep are the claims of credible sexual abuse of the priests that worked with CMRI in the beginning. I have never seen someone connect these credibly accused priests to the CMRI group specifically, and I think it's very important information that should be highlighted. CMRI operated as an underground cult in the early 1970s, and these priests have been identified through independent media. As for criticisms, I'm fine if someone feels they are not sourced enough and should be removed. I've tried to remove opinions without sources, but please take a look and delete anything you think shouldn't be in the article. Much of the basic biographical material since 1989 comes from CMRI sources or obituaries. G4wa5r4gasag (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons are allowed, but there are very stringent requirements as to their content and sourcing, including around accusations of crimes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Bill ReinhardtEdit

You could have discussed with me your intent to remove the Further Reading section of the article I created on Bill Reinhardt that had 14 references. I spent two years researching him, did numerous interviews and spent hundreds of dollars at universities on research. Imprudent and presumptuous of you.

Chris Kaufmann Cnkaufmann (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cnkaufmann, generally speaking a Further reading section in a Wikipedia article is intended to point to publications containing more detail about the article subject - the entries that were included in that article generally did not do that. WP:Further reading has some more information that may be helpful (see in particular the Considerations section). 22:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue in Henry Sherwood article?Edit

Hi Nikkimaria, there's a possible copyright issue on the Henry Sherwood page. I tried to report it on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but couldn't figure out how to code it. In the "References" section it says: "Mayors of Toronto, Volume 1, 1834 – 1899 by Victor Loring Russell ©1982 Published by: The Boston Mills Press Used with permission". Is "used by permission" sufficient to satisfy copyright concerns? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, typically no - usually when people say that they mean someone has allowed the content to be used for Wikipedia purposes rather than released under a free license, and Wikipedia-use-only permissions are not considered compatible. Do you know which portion(s) of the article come from that source? 01:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought. I've not seen a copy of the book so I don't know to what extent it's used in the article. I may see if I can track it down for a comparison. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Tracked down the book on Internet Archive and substituted proper inline cites; deleted weird "used by permission". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

'George Relph' articleEdit

Hi,

Looking over this article last night, I noticed you had removed the section 'Who's Who', listing the actor's theatre credits. You gave 'cull' as your reason, but with no clue as to why the cull. Is it perhaps to do with copyright? Verbatim text from a copyrighted source? (Albeit 60 years old) I feel this leaves the article somewhat the poorer. For an actor of George Relph's era, theatre was the main medium of expression (you can see by the number of credits). Without his theatre work, I think the article is less representative of him. It's like having an article about Madonna leaving out her music, but listing only her films. Would there be a way please, that some or all of the 'Who's Who' C.V. could go back - is there a way of circumventing the copyright issue (presuming that is why it was removed)? Perhaps rephrasing the text?

Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beryl reid fan, rephrasing some of the text could work. Unfortunately a 1960 work is unlikely to be out of copyright, particularly since there still seems to be an entry for Relph in the modern edition (although I don't have access to compare the text at the moment). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

O.K. thanks Nikkimaria, I'll take a look at doing that. Add it to the list, anyway. Cheers. Beryl reid fan (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

drumstep articleEdit

Hiya,

I'm coming from the Drumstep page, and it looks like my yesterday contribution has been deleted (not everything but a big part is missing)

I don't know if it's because of the sources I use, but as a drumstep enjoyer myself, i make sur everything I say is accurate.

Thank you anyway for helping spreading the knowledge in electronic music.

Regards


Vincent-vst (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vincent-vst, yes, unfortunately wikis aren't considered reliable for use in citations, and we need citations rather than personal experience to back up content. I'd suggest having a read through WP:Reliable sources to help guide you in locating sources to expand the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2022Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Library/Coordinators/SignupEdit

Is the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Coordinators/Signup page still active? There are a few old unanswered requests there.

The page m:The Wikipedia Library/Coordinators says that it's "outdated" at the top, which is relatively clearer, but it still has "signup" link.

People sometimes ask me whether they can apply to be coördinators, and I'm not sure what to respond. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not currently active. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Palladian architectureEdit

August songs
 

Thank you and all who helped including Johnbod, KJP1, Ceoil, Tryptofish, for being instrumental in Palladian architecture survive FAR, mostly written by Giano and nominated by Bishonen in 2004. It's a pleasure to see it on the Main page today. More detail later, you have to start somewhere. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeking advice (again)Edit

Good afternoon, Nikki. May I once more trouble you for your opinion? I'd like to use this image (top one), and I'm hoping it is OK, being only words on book spines. Grateful for your guidance. Tim riley talk 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I'd anticipate you'd be fine with uploading that image locally as {{PD-simple}}. I'd be less confident in hosting it at Commons - it would probably be fine, but the UK has a lower threshold of originality. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Splendid! Thank you so much, Nikkimaria (for about the hundredth time)! Tim riley talk 17:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with editingEdit

Hi, I have seen that you have edited missing persons lists. I could use some help adding entries to lists, do you think that you could help me out? Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'm best suited to that particular task, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: Joan GadsdonEdit

Thanks for your edits. They make good sense. Appropriate changes made to text and references. Vortexionio (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC).

King Kong vs. Godzilla/GA1Edit

Nikki, if you have a moment, I would like to get another opinion on the fair use images in King Kong vs. Godzilla. I'm doing the GA review and to me they seem excessive -- I've seen articles with three justified fair use images, but I don't think these pass muster. The editor who added them is arguing they are justified. Do you have time to take a look and comment at the GAN? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FAC Mentor RequestEdit

Your name was listed at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC so I wanted to ask about Leafpad, an article that was recently rewritten/expanded and promoted to GA that I would like to get to FA status. The problem is I have zero experience with FA so I wanted to ask for your input before moving forward with that process. Any help or advice that you can provide would be greatly appreciated, as I am very much out of my comfort zone with the whole FA process, which seems daunting and honestly intimidating. - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh, my number one piece of advice for an article like this one would be to get someone who's a subject-matter expert to read through, and also get someone who has no background on the subject at all. The former will catch technical errors and missing content; the latter will catch jargon and areas that need additional explanation. A peer review advertised to relevant WikiProjects and flagged as FAC preparation might be a good way to get both.
Some more specific comments on the article as it stands:
  • If there's any way to avoid having one-paragraph sections, that would be ideal. Are there more reviews available? Can more context be added for non-expert readers?
  • Make sure you can articulate in your own mind how references should be formatted, and ensure all references match that target format. For example, footnote 9 does not include a work parameter, but most other web sources do - is there a reason? Footnotes 21 and 22 are both book sources but only one has a publisher listed - why?
  • For each source included, make sure that if it's questioned you'd be able to answer what makes it a reliable source.
  • Given the short overall length of the article, I'd suggest not repeating links. I'd also suggest having a scan of other potential style issues - for example in the lead you have "undo/redo" but then in text "Undo/Redo" capitalized. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, I'll get on those and continue working on the article. One question about the single paragraph sections, would the Leafpad#Forks subsection be problematic for having only one paragraph, or is that more of a thing for the higher sections (I don't know how to word it, the sections with two equals signs rather than three)? - Aoidh (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
It's less of an issue for subsections, but if there's a way to avoid it I'd say do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Inquiry on image reviewEdit

Hey Nikkimaria, hope you are well, and sorry to bother you. I've been trying my hand at doing image reviews of FACs within familiar territories (music, film, pop culture). I was wondering if I could get your perspective, if I am doing it appropriately or if I'm being too "strict". It's more of a concern on ALT text over licensing (which I think is minor) and I understand ALT text is not necessarily a requirement. So I don't want to come off as too stringent for something that is reasonable to begin with. Hoping to get your advice and ways to improve after reading your tips ;) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles/archive1] -- Pseud 14 (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pseud 14, I wouldn't push too hard for more detail. You generally want alts to be kept short to only convey the key information that is missed by not seeing the image. On the other hand, you might want to push a bit more at File:Patrick_Osborne.jpg: the default is to AGF on own-work claims, but that uploader has had a lot of own-work-claimed images deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Nikkimaria. These suggestions on the images have been helpful. Lastly, I take that using name of the subject alone that is depicted in the image is an acceptable ALT text? Or should it at least convey a little information ie “subject talking to a microphone”? Pseud 14 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the context. See the example at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Importance_of_context: it suggests that in a list of military leaders "Napoleon Bonaparte" would be an appropriate alt for an image of Napoleon, whereas in his own article more description is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:GEOLINKEdit

Hello again Nikkimaria! Thank you for correcting my infobox for the page Sherwood Battle Brockwell in regards to the Template:Infobox person, and MOS:GEOLINK in regards to the linking of the state of birth, in this case which is North Carolina. If you don't mind, I do want to ask just one more question about this. MOS:GEOLINK states in regards to the linking of states that "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit." soon after giving the example of [Buffalo, New York|Buffalo] (not giving New York its own link). My question is, when would you not link the larger state? New York makes sense as not to link with it being a famous state, but North Carolina, which isn't a hugely notable state outside of the US, is also not linked? I'm just asking this for future reference which states are considered not notable enough to be linked, and which states are notable enough and should not be linked- not to argue over whether North Carolina should be linked in the Sherwood Battle Brockwell article or not, because if it's the standard it's the standard. I hope this question makes sense, and thank you for your help! Cheers Johnson524 (Talk!) 13:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Johnson524, I would almost never link the larger state, for a couple of reasons. First off, [[Town]], [[State]] in read mode is nearly indistinguishable from [[Town, State]] (which is also a really common titling format for US places) - compare MOS:SOB. Second, in this context we already have a link to the most specific target (the town) to contextualize for the reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the quick and helpful feedback! Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Image question at Talk:Mariam Soulakiotis/GA1Edit

Nikki, can I bother you for another image question? The three images of Soulakiotis in Mariam Soulakiotis are AP photos -- e.g. see the credit here. The publications used as sources are all Australian and they are now PD in Australia. We've found a UK republication, more than 30 days later, here, but so far no US republication despite searching newspapers.com; however, as an AP photo it seems quite possible it did get republished in the US. I'm trying to figure out how to navigate the Hirtle chart for this. It seems to me that if there's no republication in the US within 30 days, we're in the 1927-1977 row for published abroad and not PD in Australia on 1/1/96, which means it is under copyright in the US. The nominator suggests that as an AP picture it's reasonable to assume republication in the US, and it's then PD in the US if copyright was not renewed. I have not looked to see if copyright was renewed in that case but can figure that if you say it's the appropriate path to go down. Unless AP systematically renewed every photo they ever took I would imagine it was not renewed. If you have time and can comment at the GA review that would be great. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

HiEdit

Why do you keep editing the Naknak Wikipedia page? Are you a mod or something? TherealGordon94 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi TherealGordon94, the source you are adding is not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this topic? How did you even find this page? TherealGordon94 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I know quite a bit about reliable sourcing, and monitor for additions of unreliable sources like the one you used. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

How can you have any idea if the source is reliable or not if you dont know anything about the topic? Seriously, can you just stop? You haven't added any information to the article at all, you just keep deleting stuff. TherealGordon94 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Because reliability isn't based on whether claims are true or not - even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Instead we look at a source's editorial oversight, fact-checking, author expertise, etc. Material lacking citations to reliable sources should not be restored until such a source can be found. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliability isn't based on whether claims are true or not? 😆 You're going to have to explain that one to me. TherealGordon94 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If you posted something here, it could be true; that doesn't make you a reliable source that we can cite. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so is meant to summarize reliable secondary sources on a topic, rather than just what some random person says. Original research on a topic belongs elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I get why all my teachers say Wikipedia isn't a reliable resource to cite. Cuz a bunch of poop patrol wanna be mods like you delete and change stuff just to boost up your own account. TherealGordon94 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding whatever you want using whatever sources you want makes it less reliable rather than more so. The strength of a well-done Wikipedia article is that it is entirely backed up by reliable sources that can be cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone deleted the entire article besides the first paragraph anyway. I'm sure if I try to change it back, he'll cite some dumb rule and you guys will back him up. TherealGordon94 (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope you feel like this was a job well done. You successfully suppressed information. TherealGordon94 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wanna be mod TherealGordon94 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022Edit

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soonEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022Edit

Jim Pappin imageEdit

Nikki, another image question if you have a moment. This came up at the GAN for Jim Pappin; the nominator has removed the image but would like another opinion on it. The image is File:Jim Pappin 1973.JPG. The uploader argued that the lack of a visible copyright symbol on the front or back of the photo image (both visible at upload time on eBay) meant that it was published without a copyright notice. I don't think this is sufficient evidence, since we don't know where the photo came from, and appearing on eBay is not publication. Have you run into this situation before? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie, none of the eBay links seem to be working for me, but I can speak to this situation generally. We have accepted front/back eBay photos before, but usually the situation is the image is a standalone "publication" of sorts - a publicity package photo, a sports card, that kind of thing. It's not clear to me from the image description that this particular photo falls into that category, so unless there's something more at eBay I would agree with you that we have insufficient evidence for the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let the nominator know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Newspapers.comEdit

Hi, I was sent approval but wasn't sent a user name and password.. Unlike the others you can't access the site in the Wiki library mode. Newspaperarchive.com is OK now in wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org mode.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: If you were sent approval I'd suggest request a password reset using that email in 'Forgot your password'. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Nice one, thanks Nikkimaria! Hope you're well! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Consider archiving your talk page. Over 300kb is massive for a talk page! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Saintmalo.jpgEdit

Nikki, another question if you have a moment, from a GA review for All the Light We Cannot See. One of the images used in that article is File:Saintmalo.jpg which gives a fr-wiki link for the source; that page says it is a photo taken by Antoine DeClerck and uploaded by user Barbet, who is inactive. In a situation like this would you AGF that Barbet has the appropriate permission to assign the license? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As it happens I've now failed the GA, but I'm still interested in the answer if you have time to look at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mike, that's a tricky one. You can check userpages for relationships that would support permission or user talk pages for deletion notices that would suggest lack of permission, but of course neither option is available here. You can also use a reverse image search to try to find an earlier publication, which I'm not seeing here. In the absence of any such indications, and with an inactive uploader, an apparently non-famous photographer, and a modern photo, we fall back to AGF. (That being said, since France does not have FoP it does also need a tag for the building). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks -- that's helpful, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2022Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

FA ReviewEdit

Hi, this is Unlimitedlead, and I recently finished up the edits you suggested on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Octavius of Great Britain/archive1. If you don't mind, could you take another look just to make sure everything is alright and vote on whether you support the promotion or not? Thank you so much for your time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!Edit

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcementEdit

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Pruitt-Igoe-vandalized-windows.jpgEdit

Nikki, I have another image question from a GA review, if you have a moment. File:Pruitt-Igoe-vandalized-windows.jpg comes from a book written under contract to the US government, and the image page asserts that that makes it PD. I recall a long-ago discussion in which a government grant for doing work did not confer PD status on the work, but I can't find anything that addresses the question. Do you know if images in this situation inherit the PD status from the government? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie, is it under a contract or a grant? Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States#Works_produced_by_contractors outlines the details around contracts, but there are a much wider variety of options depending on the specific grant details. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The title page of the book seems to indicate that it was under contract. However, it's unlikely that the author of the book actually produced the photograph in question under contract for the government, given that the book was published 20 years after the demolition of the subject. I don't see any indication of the image's copyright status in the book. Ruбlov (talkcontribs) 00:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
That's going to be potentially problematic if no more information is available, since it's within a timeframe to end up as an orphan work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and remove it from the article. Ruбlov (talkcontribs) 00:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Gilley for deletionEdit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Gilley 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/Paul Gilley 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.

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles DarlingEdit

It's one thing if you just don't like them, but removing the wikidata infobox from Charles Darling, 1st Baron Darling as "not a reliable source" makes no sense, for a couple of reasons. One is that the infobox doesn't use data that isn't sourced on Wikidata, it discards anything without a reference. Another is that I went through the Wikidata entry (before adding the infobox) and cited everything there to the authority control databases... I actually only added it because the existing infobox didn't have even the most basic biographical information. The third (and most obvious imo) is the information shown by the wikidata infobox was already (and still is) in the text of the article, cited to other sources....which means it's all cited at least twice, in the article and on Wikidata. It's worth pointing out that infoboxes don't cite their sources anyhow (and are not required or expected to), its supposed to be information cited elsewhere.

The {{Template:Infobox person/Wikidata}} template is used on over 4500 articles, and if you have a problem with it, you need to take that up in some other venue than just removing it from specific articles as 'not reliable'. The template was discussed by the community over five years ago, and the decision then was "the proponents of this template have made a convincing argument for its use over the on-wiki infoboxes".... it's not something I randomly came up with, and there is clearly no widespread consensus to "make it go away", which is what you are essentially claiming by calling it "not a reliable source".

Essentially, you removed information that's already cited both in the article itself, and to different sources on Wikidata, apparently with an automated editing tool, and a "justification" that is nonsensical. The information in the wikidata infobox is not wrong, is cited, and the article is "better" with information like when he lived in the infobox. If you want to fix the existing infobox so that it actually includes his basic biographical data, that is all cited in the article and on Wikidata, then be my guest. Otherwise, I'm going to put back the Wikidata one, as everything it adds is cited to authority control, the exact same sources that are commonly used for basic biographical data on Wikipedia.

Please pay more attention when reverting people with automated tools, actually look at the before and after. Your edit did not improve the article, at all, since you didn't bother to actually fix the infobox you put back... if you had, you would have probably have noticed you were retyping the exact same information you had just removed, and that it is all cited in the article text. Just because you can make the edit with a single click does not mean that it is correct or helpful. Jarnsax (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The template imports data that is sourced on Wikidata, but does not consider the quality of that sourcing. This means that careful (and not automated) evaluation is required to determine whether the importation is appropriate. In this particular case, the data is sourced to thepeerage, which is is deprecated as a source on English Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing it, that actually makes sense (which the generic edit summary didn't, tbh, it looked like "I don't like it" about the template itself). I was unaware that that specific website wasn't considered reliable, though the info I actually care about (birth, death, etc.) is given other places as well. The 'handcrafted' version is of course much better than the Wikidata one, which I admit is ugly, and I'm definitely not on some mission to convert them all to the WD version. Jarnsax (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Glad we were able to sort that out! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for being so "vehement" about it, but it really did look to me like you were objecting to the use of Wikidata itself, as opposed to having an issue with the sourcing of the actual data moved over. Those are two totally different things, and I misunderstood what you meant by your edit summary and kinda yelled at you for the wrong one of them. FYI, however, the Wikidata version of the template does have a "suppressfields" parameter, that can be used to prevent data from being copied over (and a comment in the wikitext can explain in more detail). I will make a point, in the future, of using it to prevent info sourced only from "thepeerage" from being moved over if I when I add them. Still, the customized one you added is far better. Jarnsax (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree - unfortunately another issue with automated data import is that it is not as curated as one might like. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Maple syrupEdit

By undoing my edits, you are creating citations that are incorrect in other places in the article. My edit adds content and consistency to the article.to the article. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Absolutely Certainly, what I did was combine your duplicate citations and improved the consistency and correctness of the citations you added. We do not need four different references to cover a four-page span of a single book. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria.
I am glad to see that you did not undo my edit.
Citations 5, 7, 9, and 14 refer to Elsevier's Dictionary of trees, a very well referenced book (over 200 sources are referenced). Citations 6, 8, 10, and 15 refer to the USDA Plants Database that backs up Elsevier (or vice versa) and also provides images of the trees that add to the readers experience, should they choose to follow the links.
My next project is to update all references to North American species of trees in Wikipedia by using these two sources.
Lets collaborate to improve Wikipedia. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Absolutely Certainly, I appreciate your efforts to add references; however, you haven't explained why you reverted my edits to improve their formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I broke down the first and last name and entered them in the appropriate fields. I made each citation point directly to the page where the term is mentioned. I added 'North America' as volume 1 is about North American trees. Volume 2 is about South American tress, and so on. I added the language in which the source is written. I added the URL status (live). I added via google books. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Breaking down names is unnecessary and the way you did it was incorrect. If page links are accessible (availability is variable), providing one link is sufficient for a four-page span and does not require duplicating references. |location= is not meant to indicate the subject of the volume - it's for where the volume was published. When language is set to English it does not display. |url-status= should only be included when there is an archiveurl, which in the case of these references there is not. |via= is an optional parameter that is again inconsistent with the established citation style.
You also made a number of other changes you haven't mentioned, including changing a correct |website= into an incorrect |others=, and changing the date formatting of some retrieval dates (making them inconsistent with the rest of the page). In short, unfortunately you added errors and inconsistencies which require correction. Thus I have reinstated those corrections. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is breaking down names unnecessary and how did I do it incorrectly?
It is unnecessary because |author= can validly contain the complete name of the author. Your approach used a combination of |author= and |first= instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I did not duplicate references. I added unique references for each species. You have duplicated references since "citation 5" appears 6 times in the article.
Repeating a reference is not the same as redundant duplication - repeating is preferred to having multiple full citations to the same source, as in your version. (There are other valid ways to address this, but repeating full citation details four times for four pages is not useful).
I used 'location' because it was a creative way to make the citation read correctly. Simple solution to our dilemma, we change 'title" to: 'Elsevier's Dictionary of Trees Volume 1 North America, and remove the then redundant 'volume' parameter and incorrect 'location' parameter.
Citation templates aren't typically a place for creativity. Your proposed solution is similarly not a valid use of these templates. What we could do is expand the volume parameter to include the volume name.
Whether a parameter is displayed or not (en) does not make it irrelevant.
You state that 'url-status= should only be included when there is an archiveurl, which in the case of these references there is not.' On what do you base this assertion?
The documentation for Citation Style 1, which underlies the {{cite}} family of templates.
Why is 'via' inconsistent with the 'established' citation style? It is a parameter available in the template. What is the 'established citation style
Some parameters are available in the template but are optional rather than required for a particular citation type. For these templates, use or non-use of the parameter is established on an article-by-article basis - and such style choices should not be changed without consensus.
In 'cite book' only one parameter is required, the title of the book, all the rest are optional.
You also say that I 'made a number of other changes you haven't mentioned, including changing a correct |website= into an incorrect |others=, and changing the date formatting of some retrieval dates (making them inconsistent with the rest of the page). Do you have any examples to that up?
Here is an example of an edit introducing both of these problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
In short, unfortunately you added errors and inconsistencies which require correction. Thus I have reinstated those corrections. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely Certainly: while I appreciate you may be editing in good faith, your reversion was not in any way a correction and should not be repeated. I will answer your questions in more detail shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
No reversion done. 'View history' and 'Read'. Just a new edit that meets all of your criteria. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely Certainly, it most certainly does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
In which way? I removed the numerous duplicates and edited the template with more information and referring to the first page in the range. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely Certainly, named references are an appropriate way to repeat citations to the same source; it's repeating full citations that is unnecessary redundancy. You've now removed correct citations. You've also added content to |title= that is not meant to be in that parameter, as above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It is all these 'irrelevant, optional, should, and meant to be' statements that are editorially unencyclopedic. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
My talk page is not an encyclopedia article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ludvig Verner Helms InfoboxEdit

Hello, Nikkimaria-- Help! You recently reverted a page I've been working on for Ludvig Verner Helms. I had attempted to add an infobox, using a wikidata item, which you removed with the comment "RV circular"

First let me say I am new to doing this, and am finding my way as I go. This infobox was my first foray into "wikidata"! So thank you for keeping me straight.

First I wanted to confirm I understand the problem you found, and then explain what I intend to do to fix it to make sure I'm fixing the right problem. And any advice you can give me would be appreciated. I have attempted to do my own research in wiki help, but it can be overwhelming...

I believe that problem you identified with "rv circular" was that I had cited the Helms wikidata entry as the source of the data in the wikidata entry. (I thought at the time I was citing the Helms wikipedia page--it seemed like an elegant solution at the time since all the data is well cited there. However I did notice and ignore an error flag on the reference). After you reverted the page, I found the wikidata help said that is not appropriate; instead I should put the same citations in wikidata, and then use those as the references for the wikidata for the infobox.

Is my above diagnosis correct?

I have also noticed (looking at other infoboxes) that most of the wikipedia infoboxes simply insert a template which includes all the data. This would be much easier than attempting to use wikidata as the source. And since all of the infobox data is also in the body of the wikipedia article, citations should be taken care of. I would use the infobox:person template, I don't see a better one.

Does this sound like a better approach?

Oh, and what is "rv" in your comment "rv circular"? And what does FAC, FAR, and DYK mean on your user page? Thanks, GuildCV1 GuildCV1 (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi GuildCV1, you're partly correct - citing the Helms Wikidata entry as the source of the data in the Wikidata entry is circular, but so too is importing data into Wikipedia that is ultimately cited to Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR. You need external references to support this information, or you can follow the alternate approach you suggest. As for your other questions, "rv" means revert, FAC is Featured Article Candidates, FAR is Featured Article Review, and DYK is Did You Know - you might find this page helpful in understanding some of our common abbreviations, but often you can just stick WP: in front of a term in the search box and you'll end up at the right place (eg search WP:FAR will get you to the page about the Featured Article Review process). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Dang that was fast! Thanks for the reply, and I'll take a look at WP Circular. And I'll take the easy approach with the infobox.
One other quick question (Maybe). Much of the wikidata entries I paged through (including some in the Helms entry) have an auto-generated reference "imported from wikimedia project". I briefly researched this, and it appears there are "tools" that can do this. I'm particularly wondering if there is an automated way to populate the wikidata Helms page references using the wikipedia page and it's citations.
I scanned a list of tools, found some that looked promising, but got stopped dead with the "javascript" extension. Can you point me to a resource or help page on how to get a tool running? And is there a "go-to" tool you could recommend to do this? Or am I in over my head, and I need to be a "senior" wikiuser to play with tools!?
I'm not really sure why I'm doing anything with Helms wikidata at this point (my goal was to expand the Helms wikipedia page), but I thought I would at least understand what capability wikidata brings to the table.
Thanks! GuildCV1 (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi GuildCV1, were you looking at wikidata:WD:TOOLS? There are several options with different levels of sophistication, but if you're looking for something easy to get running, I'd actually suggest you go to your preferences and use some of the ones under Gadgets. They require that you have Javascript enabled in your browser; this page explains how to do that for many of the common browsers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks!
GuildCV1 GuildCV1 (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

FASAEdit

Nikki, I don't see any more imminent saves for this month at FAR because John is still picking away at Josquin, and we are on hold for Ceoil for H. D. ... I was wondering if you wanted to action the three outstanding WP:FASA pages whenever you have a free moment. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soonEdit

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022Edit

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Books & Bytes – Issue 52Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

  • New instant-access collections:
    • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
    • Project MUSE
    • Taylor & Francis
    • ASHA
    • Loeb
  • Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022Edit

MOS:1STABBREdit

MOS:1STABBR indicates that on the first occurrence of an abbreviation it should be introduced with the full expression, ie. "National Rugby League (NRL)". Introducing a secondary link to the same target adds another MOS issue (duplink) and does not resolve the original, since readers should not have to follow links to understand abbreviations.

You seem to have quite alot of talk compared to most users, but I will say that I have absolutely bent over backwards to attempt to accomodate you. I have fulfilled the tenets of that directive, with your takeaway that we should assume that the reader is better suited to reading the simple English version of wikipedia. I don't want to cast aspersions over the readers of the articles, nor over you, as I'm sure you are a lovely lady, but I believe you will be shovelling water uphill on this one, as I'm not seeing this on the EPL, SPL or IPL. When someone has gone out of there way to ignore the WPRL MOS, it seems quite churlish to absolutely enforce your take on introductions, when it is not widely enforced in other sports.Fleets (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Fleets, if other articles have similar issues, the correct response is to fix them - certainly not to use that as a justification to revert fixes to these articles. Unfortunately rather than "bending over backwards" to accommodate readers, you are actively blocking improvements, apparently without any rationale other than "other issues exist". Please stop doing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe they needed fixing in the first place, and was pointing out your justification leaned towards assuming people were idiots, and should be treated as such. My response to that would let them use the simple english version of Wikipedia. I am literally going out of my way to engage with someone who is going out of there way to make a sentence not flow. I am attempting to engage with you, but it doesn't appear to be bearing any fruit.Fleets (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
My take on reading up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations is that you would be transcluding the primary page rule out to the many pages that are subordinate from it. Whilst it makes sense that the BBC is defined by its abbreviations, it would make little sense for all of it's employees to have the corporation initialised, nor would you expect to see astronauts initialised, though the parent page would be.Fleets (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Fleets, we have a global audience, and aim to make the encyclopedia accessible to them - not just send everyone to Simple. There's nothing at MOS:ABBR that supports your interpretation regarding subarticles, nor does simply providing the acronym in parentheses a single time intolerably impact flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry but did you read the link, you are applying the rule for the mother article to the child article. You would not have a rod for your back that is hundreds of articles, your interpretation would see you having to change hundreds of thousands of articles.Fleets (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Fleets, I read the link. It does not discriminate between parent and child articles. If you believe otherwise, please cite the specific section you're referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Whitey (musician) page: Edit inquiryEdit

Hey there, I just wanted to ask why you removed my contributions to the Whitey wikipedia page when I put in the time to cite any available online sources? sure the sources weren't all accredited, but I have personally verified these as correct as I have watched all the shows (that don't have an accredited source, and have played GTA4 which was referenced) how am I to find any other sources? surely the information of one of his songs being in Breaking Bad is more important than finding an accredited source? especially when previously there were absolutely no sources listed? I'm not trying to just be annoying, but I can't exactly find a peer reviewed paper on whitey songs in TV shows. I'm trying to find your reasons here so I can be better for the future.

Thanks Navy Groundhog (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Navy Groundhog, I understand that the lack of sources can be frustrating - sometimes there just isn't reliable support for the content you want to add. Unfortunately though your own personal experience watching the show, or unreliable sources like open wikis, aren't good standins. (I realized though that I removed one piece I hadn't intended to, so I've added that back in - thanks). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Nikki, this isn't consistent with all of the Wikipedia pages titled "List of <Show Name> Episodes." Each of these contains a block of episode summaries that generally have no citations at all. The implied source is clearly the episode itself. Anyone that wants to verify that the summary is accurate can go watch the episode in question. As these are usually pay-walled behind subscription services, or in the case of older shows, possibly not on the Internet at all, there is usually no way to provide a web link to the episode. The same is true for books. Take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_the_World. The plot summary has no citations, because the source is the book itself, the text of which is copyrighted and not available on the Internet. 2603:8080:6A00:32FF:98E1:2FBD:14AB:33B8 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi IP, there are different sourcing requirements at play. WP:PLOTSOURCE allows for the case you describe: on the page about a work, the work itself is assumed to be a primary source for a plot summary. That special case doesn't apply on other pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

pulling hooksEdit

Hi, Nikkimaria! Thanks for pulling Grant Hermanns from prep, that's a good catch :)

As a technical note, when a hook is removed from prep, both the hook and the credit slot need to be replaced with blanks; that way, both manually and automatically promoting editors know in a pinch where the credits are supposed to go. The blank credit is usually a * {{DYKmake|Example|Editor|subpage=}}, and if it's the last hook in a set, it'll be that plus a * {{DYKnom|Example|Nominator}} on a new line. A blank hook looks like * ... that .... Thanks very much! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2022Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

RSEdit

am i missing something you remove http://www.thepeerage.com/p3608.htm#i36071 citation from Lady Elizabeth Page claiming it to be RS. the peerage.com provided their citations

  1. [S37] BP2003 volume 2, page 2599. See link for full details for this source. Hereinafter cited as. [S37]
  2. [S130] Wikipedia, online http;//www.wikipedia.org. Hereinafter cited as Wikipedia.
  3. [S323] Sir James Balfour Paul, The Scots Peerage: founded on Wood's edition of Sir Robert Douglas's The Peerage of Scotland (Edinburgh, Scotland: David Douglas, 1904), volume VIII, page 209. Hereinafter cited as The Scots Peerage.
  4. [S37] BP2003. [S37]

while you didn't remove no.3 reference from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/05/05/belle-true-story-movie-details-changed/8419041/, basically a movie review with no citations like the peerage.com Wentwort12 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Wentwort12, thepeerage is deprecated and should not be cited in articles. If you feel there should be a similar limitation on the other source, you're welcome to propose that at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Joann Lee TieslerEdit

Well in that case, shouldn't other articles such as Murder of Tracie McBride and Murder of Yingying Zhang not have a second info box because the killers are not the main subject? Rexxx7777 (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

rm non-RSEdit

Hi there. I noticed you've been removing citations that are not to reliable sources, but leaving the previously sourced material in the articles. Is it truly better to remove a non-rs citation but leave completely unsourced material? Why not delete the sentence you're challenging instead of only removing the citation? Why not add a CN tag? Mbdfar (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mbdfar, there is effectively no difference between material with an unreliable source and material that is unsourced - in both cases the content is lacking a reliable source to support it. Depending on the specific material in question, sometimes I will remove it entirely and other times leave it in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

October songs
 

... for the source review Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 in its second attempt! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022Edit

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October 2022Edit

From your current listing at FAC mentors, you are listed for possible interest in various articles. For the past several months, I've been editing the president's article for James Madison, and thought to ask you if this would be of sufficient interest for you to look at. After my successful GAN promotion for it, there are now another two positive peer reviews as well. Any interest for you to possibly be a co-nominator or mentor for a FAC nomination for this biography article? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi ErnestKrause, I'm happy to look at it, but I think Hog Farm would be better positioned to be a possible co-nom there. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I've given a pre-FAC review but would rather not be a formal co-nom. I don't consider myself particularly familiar with most of the politics stuff, and I generally prefer not to co-nominate on stuff that I haven't extensively source-checked. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Both Hog Farm and Vanamonde have done pre-FACs (HF comments directly above) for the article though and they haven't signed up for the FAC. That leaves it open for you to co-nominate or mentor if you are still inclined to after you have a chance to look at the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi ErnestKrause, like HF I'm reluctant to co-nom an article of this scope without being intimately familiar with the subject and sourcing. However, I do have some suggestions for you to consider heading into FAC.

  • Make sure the image licensing is complete and supported by the information provided in the image description. For example, the tag currently on File:Battle_of_New_Orleans,_Jean_Hyacinthe_de_Laclotte.jpg states that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States" - such a tag needs to be added. Another issue is File:Nat-bap-windows.png: the uploader may have taken the photo, but the artwork pictured is almost certainly not their own work.
  • Make sure citation formatting is consistent - you should be able to articulate how a particular citation type is set up and ensure that all citations of that type follow that model. For example, footnotes 4 and 8 and 18 are to the same website, but all have different formatting.
  • For every source used, make sure you can explain if asked why that particular source is high-quality and reliable. For example, Healthguidance.org - why is this site a strong source for the claim it's supporting? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those comments. I've removed the stained glass image as being supplementary to the article which has many images, and the other image you mentioned was changed to another image by another editor. I've nominated the article now and the images look better now. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi ErnestKrause, that's great, but don't neglect the two sourcing comments - both of the examples mentioned above are still present, and these are samples only. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • After looking up some books, "health guidance.com" appears to be used by multiple science books in press at this time including Application of Nanotechnology in Food Science here: [1]. It looks like these citations check out correctly. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Pietro Yon reliable sourcing questionEdit

Hi Nikkimaria, you recently removed a non-RS I cited in Pietro Yon. Thank you for making me aware of Wikipedia's stance on FindAGrave's reliability. I have a follow-up question: reliability aside, Find-A-Grave was the only source I know to support his internment at Gate of Heaven; should we accordingly remove the article statements that were originally supported by that FindAGrave citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipavipa (talkcontribs) 11:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you were able to find a better source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I've also found a better source for J. Meade Falkner's grave at Burford, and reinstated the mention of his grave that you removed because of the FindAGrave source. Could I politely request that you mark these with [better source needed] rather than deleting uncontroversial, and usually valid, information from articles wholesale, which is rather throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I've found through lots of experience dealing with poor sourcing that, whether I take the content out or leave it, someone will think I should be doing the opposite. For that reason rather than a blanket approach I do what I think is best in a particular case, and in this particular case I think it's better to remove - really even if you had rock-solid sourcing the claim doesn't seem to belong where it is. But I don't feel strongly about that so if you want to keep it there with a better source then so be it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I can see what you mean about the positioning of this information, but I've never really understood the logic in removing information wholesale just because of dodgy sourcing (especially in cases like this, where the claim is uncontroversial; this isn't what Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines were conceived to deal with, IMO). The problem here is the citation, not the material, so it makes no sense at all to me to remove the material. In order of descending preference, I'd: 1) find a better citation; 2) flag the reference as "better citation needed"; 3) remove the reference; 4) remove the material and reference. YMMV. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022Edit

NRLEdit

I'm not sure if you might have something to contribute here? Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Alexander DimitryEdit

I have improved this article to the best of my abilities. Thank you for taking your time to edit it. Carefully read what it says. Do you want this put another way?

His mother Marianne Celeste Dragon's portrait was on the cover of the 2009 book Exiles at Home by Shirley Elizabeth Thompson.

Marianne Celeste Dragon was featured in the 2013 book Behind Closed Doors Art in the Spanish American Home, 1492-1898 By Mia L. Bagneris, Michael A. Brown, Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt Tzim78 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  • The references to popular media are listed as books.Tzim78 (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you added a cn without carefully going over the clickable references I added. I also tried to improve the references. If you click on the links associated with each reference it will take you to the book or information I cited. Tzim78 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tzim78, thank you for adding a reference to replace the cn tag. With regards to the popular media section, I'm aware they are listed as books, but why is it significant to an understanding of Alexander to know that his mother was featured in books? That section, if included, should be about his impact on culture. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Great I fixed it thanksTzim78 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2022Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

QuestionEdit

Hi Nikki, just reviewing some old A-Class articles and I'm wondering about this image: File:DC2Kyeema.jpg. It's atypical because a scan from a book and I've not been able to find the image anywhere online, although I can confirm that the book does credit the image to the National Library of Australia, per the WP page. Does the licensing still look okay to you or should I revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ian, unless there's more info than that in the book we don't know enough to confirm that the licensing is correct. The Australian tag is fine per creation date, but the US tag in use requires publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Ha, no such luck... I trawled back issues of Australian newspapers to see if it'd been published back then but couldn't find it. OTOH I did spot another image of just the aeroplane that was published in a newspaper in 1937 and that can be downloaded from the National Library, so perhaps that's the one to go for... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry Nikki, just to confirm before I try something else, would you say there's any licence we could use for this image to make it solid? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ian, it's possible, but you'd need more information - either an earlier publication or evidence that the image was Crown copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yep that's what I wanted to know -- since there's no evidence it was taken by a government employee and I can't prove that it was published around the time it was taken, I'll go for the other one I have in mind that does appear in a contemporary newspaper and so presumably will satisfy the US tag requirement. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Lord of the FliesEdit

Dear Nikkimaria,

Thanks for your interest in this article. Could you please explain your revert of the explanation of the "biguns" and "littluns" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_of_the_Flies&type=revision&diff=1122160131&oldid=1122097034 ? Did i miss something? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hansmuller, the source you provided was a user-generated wiki, which is not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing bad sourcesEdit

I see that you have removed bad sources from missing people. It would be good if you could replace them with and better source after you remove them. I have been replacing some the sources after you have removed them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 53Edit

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

  • New collections:
    • Edward Elgar
    • E-Yearbook
    • Corriere della Serra
    • Wikilala
  • Collections moved to Library Bundle:
    • Ancestry
  • New feature: Outage notification
  • Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Providence DemographicsEdit

Hi, I've been trying to make a couple improvements in the Providence Demographics section. One of the changes I'd like to make is moving the decennial census table from the history section, to the demographics section, and change it to single column, right-aligned. I can't find any significant US City article that does the census data any different than right-aligned single column in the demographics section.

Could you be more specific about the reason you reverted the table change? I'm not sure what the formatting issue was. Thanks. AlleyRegent69 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi AlleyRegent69, that placement pushes a bunch of other stuff down the page and divorces it from the relevant textual content. Having a big column like that in an image- and chart-heavy page is always going to cause problems. Also, the content belongs just as well (actually probably better) in History than Demographics. Alternatively it could be moved to a subarticle, as is done for countries. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Look at every other US city article, though. I don't think it makes sense for Providence to have a different decennial census table than literally every other significant US city.
If anything, the problem is the crime statistic info box, which should get moved to another section. AlleyRegent69 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Just because other articles do something a certain way, doesn't mean that way is the best (or only) way to do things. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Milicent Shinn pageEdit

Hi, I'm curious why several links were removed from the page and why the birth death dates of her father and mother were removed. These birth/deat dates are important to refute Scarborough and Furmoto's claims. And if the links to outside websites is not allowed, please let me know what is the rule.

Thank you

I am getting used to the comparing of different versions, so please bear with me if I have gotten your changes incorrectly identified. Appreciate the feedback.

Janet WashTownHistory (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Janet. Find-a-Grave is not considered to be a reliable source, and external links should not appear in the body of the article (they could be either written as citations or moved to the External links section). As for the dates, birth and death dates are generally only included after a name in the article body if there is special contextual relevance - could you elaborate why you believe that to be the case here? It's not clear to me how those dates, in addition to the subject's, would refute "the family claim". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy response.
I can understand that Find-a-grave is not a reliable source, since I've found much incorrect information there. Can I say that their graves are at the Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland without providing a link? As far as I know MVC does not have an online list of people buried there. I have visited the family gravesite and know that they are there.
The reason that I had put in Milicent's parent's dates of death was that the Untold Lives chapter claimed that Milicent's parents were ailing and that was why she did not continue with her career. In actuality her father had passed much earlier and her mother was ailing, but she had plenty of family support. Elissa Rodkey's article "Far More than a dutiful daughter" has pointed out other discrepancies in their chapter on Milicent. I will add this information to the "Family Claim Controversy" section instead of leaving it up to the reader to see it in another section. (I had also added that because I kept wanting to know their date of birth and death, but I will put it in there in a more appropriate and relevant place.
Thank you for explaining the external links.
Are you saying that it would be ok to put the Mission Peak Heritage Foundation link in the External Links section? We do like to have people find us since very few people know that there is an archive at Shinn Historical Park & Arboretum.
I'm still making my way around wikipedia and really love this resource and want to provide as much correct and accurate information as possible. Thank you for the feedback.
Janet WashTownHistory (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Janet, sure, that can go in the External links section. Alternatively, you can use it as a citation to support the claims made in the section on the park, although based on your comment I'd suggest you have a look at the Conflict of Interest guideline. Regarding the burial sourcing, this source would seem to be useful for that purpose? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Two Of Us (Film 2000) WikipageEdit

Hi, rather than going back and forth on revisions on The Two of Us (Film 2000) entry, and seeing how you've been around awhile and I'm just starting out, perhaps I'll have something to learn here. What the Wiki rules state is thus (I have just left in the releevent part for expediency):

What can normally be linked Shortcut WP:ELYES Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

If you could please enlighten me why the Wiki rules state that movie or television credits fall under content what can be normally linked, (which would also be subject to erring on the side of allowing non-destructive edits to stand) but your interpretation is that this is incorrect. I read the section you are citing, and it is pretty clear the section I am citing is the exception to the rule you are enforcing. If I am incorrect about this, I am happy to learn why!! Thanks in advance. Arts Publica (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Arts Publica, the relevant rule is WP:ELPOINTS point 2: external links don't belong in the body of the article. This applies even if the link is 100% appropriate per ELYES. Instead external links belong in a separate external links section, at the end of the article. I'm not convinced it's appropriate to include IMDb links for all cast members for a film article, so I haven't done that, but if you think they should be included, that would be the place for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria!! Thanks for your reply!! As mentioned already, it is indeed super clear what WP:ELPOINTS point 2: says, however the item under discussion is not in fact what WP:ELPOINTS point 2: PROHIBITS, but instead what WP:ELYES point 3 ALLOWS. WP:ELYES point 3 not only allows for an external link to movie and television databases, it explicitly names such lists and encourages their addition by specifically categorizing them under the title WHAT CAN NORMALLY BE LINKED.
I agree with you that it is not necessarily appropriate to include links to all cast members in a project, but the edit in question is not seeking to add ALL cast members. It seeks to add one cast member, with context - ie not a passive addition. WP:ELYES point 3 provides a clear guideline not just for what is acceptable, but what is explicitly deemed as NORMALLY ALLOWED, obviating any necessity to attempt a purely subjective determination about this external link because the rule I am citing specifically names movie and television credit lists as NORMALLY ALLOWABLE.
I believe what you may actually be arguing is that the proposed external link is somehow in some way abnormal, and therefore not allowable. But I suggest to you that my use of the external link, the way I deployed it is precisely the use anticipated by WP:ELYES point 3. Thoughts? Arts Publica (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Arts Publica, I think we're talking past each other a bit. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with you on whether these links fall under ELYES. Even if they fall under ELYES, they still shouldn't be in the article body, because that's just not where external links go according to the external links guideline. Any link included per ELYES should be in an external links section. ELPOINTS states that "include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article" - read "appropriate" here as meaning "anything included per ELYES". (If a wording change on that guideline would make this clearer let me know and I can propose it). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. Fair points all. While I think the language in that rules section is ambiguous and could benefit by some smithing, it's also pretty clear that there are few external links in the body of articles. In any event, I'm the newbie here and so I'm quite sure following your lead will only be to my benefit!! OK. Thanks for all for now!! Arts Publica (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on an RFCEdit

HI Nikkimaria, I'm asking for some guidance on an RFC. I think it should be given greater prominence than it currently has, but I don't want to be canvassing. Any advice you can give would be appreciated. The RFC is at Talk:Environment and Climate Change Canada, and it's about the use of the French name of the federal department in the lead sentence of the article. There was previous discussion, and then it was converted to an RFC. There was a previous posting to the Canadian Notice Board, and you'll see that in the original discussion I had pointed out that the same pattern is followed in articles about the Irish government, so I think it's relevant both to Canadian editors, and also to Irish editors. Now that it's been turned into a formal RFC, would it be okay to post links to it at the Canadian Notice Board, or on the Talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, without comment on the merits, just to draw it to people's attention? Or would that be canvassing? The reason I'm asking is that I don't really understand how RFCs work, and last spring I apparently didn't follow accepted practice on that issue about what should be in the infoboxes for the provinces. I would appreciate your thoughts. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I think it'd be reasonable to make a neutral note at the Canadian noticeboard that the discussion has now been converted to an RfC. I see the RfC's poster has also left a note at WT:LEAD. I don't anticipate that a similar note to WP:IRELAND would be canvassing, but I'm not sure that project is relevant - regardless of what outcome is arrived at for this article, it wouldn't be binding on Irish articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022Edit

Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 28 November 2022Edit

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageEdit

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

AberfanEdit

Thanks very much for this. I thought it was absolute [redacted] to be honest, but I sometimes just do not have the energy for confrontation on here so I very much hoped that someone else would address it. Cowardly and lazy, yes, but effective. Thanks again and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

wilkinsEdit

I still disagree with you about the link to findagrave - while the user-contributed information is not considered a reliable source, a photograph of a gravestone should be.

At any rate, I don’t see that the link you added has any value. Unless I’m missing something (always possible) all it contains is a catalog record listing a photograph of wilkins (not shown), and has nothing to do with his personal life. Peter Flass (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A photograph can only source what is shown in it - most of the original claim was not. The only piece that was included was the death date; the new source has that, and is a secondary source whereas the original was primary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous CanadiansEdit

Have had a very frustrating time at the metis article... Cindy warned us about when this got merged that this may happen...o well....With that said it made me double check our main article and I really think we should review indigenous people of Canada article. Thinking it's not GA level anymore or should I say up to today's standards and we should consolidate a lot of the information. Are you up for a review of the holidays? I mentioned this in the past just keeps getting delayed . Moxy-  01:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, are you looking to delist the article, or improve it back to standards? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Bringing it back up to standards. Was planning to spend some time editing it and getting you to take a quick review..... alongside your recommendations. Moxy-  02:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Moxy, sure - if you want to take a run through first and then let me know when it's ready to take a look? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
sounds good I'll let you know in the new year. Moxy-  02:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Grant HermannsEdit

Nikkimaria, any chance you can return to this nomination and give further information on the close paraphrasing? Unfortunately, you weren't pinged in the response to your most recent comment. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)