User talk:Feminist/Archive 10: Difference between revisions

Hi, SSTflyer. I saw the VPI thread and have been meaning to respond, but haven't had a chance. I'll post some thoughts here when I have free time, which will most likely be tomorrow at this rate. It's been busy in real life and haven't had time for much more than basic editing the last couple of days. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I enjoy scheduling FLs for the main page very much and wouldn't mind doing it more often, I can't say that I support expanding TFL at this time. The main issue I have is a lack of diversity among FLs, which makes scheduling complicated at times. This page offers a good indication of what we have been promoting lately. As you can see, FL leans heavily towards sports and entertainment articles, which tend to fit a list format well. At a rate of 2 TFLs per week, I've been able to keep main page choices as diverse as possible by using FLs from other categories at a greater relative rate than sports and media/music; as a result, the stockpile of unused FLs leans heavily to the major categories. Even at a rate of 3 TFLs per week, I would probably have to run 2–3 sports lists, 2–3 media lists, and maybe 2 music lists a month; that would about double our monthly usage of such lists. My fear is that people would get sick of the constant pop culture lists and complain regularly. We've been able to avoid complaints about our list selection for the most part and I'd like to keep it that way.

That being said, I don't have a supervote over the process and this comment shouldn't be taken as one. If a consensus develops that we should have TFL more often, I'll go along with it and try to schedule TFL the best I can. At the same time, the FL and greater communities need to know that there is only so much I can do with the choices available to me. It is easier to enforce some measure of topic diversity with the way things are now. If people don't mind having a lot of pop culture lists featured, then I'd be happy to choose more of them. I have my doubts as to what the community at large would think, though. I'll post a link to this at the VPI thread so interested parties know it's there. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I can definitely see your frustration over the lack of variety of promoted FLs. However, if I am reading this correctly, you are literally saying that featured lists of topics other than music, media and sports are being used at a proportionally faster rate. This means that they would be used up quicker. In fact, TFA suffers from a similar problem, though to a lesser extent, in that the number of featured articles on military topics is relatively high. This means that the TFA coordinators have to schedule a relatively high number of military FAs to keep the pool of WP:FANMPs balanced, which has drawn occasional complaints. I think if TFL were to be increased to daily, this may gain support from editors who create featured lists, but yes, a constant stream of pop culture and sports topics may draw complaints. An alternative proposal to feature FLs would be to try allowing DYKs for newly promoted FLs, but again such a change would require community consensus. I may consider starting an RFC to see what the community thinks. sst ✈ ^(top/_bottom) 05:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:FL2015 again, I see that the rate of FL promotions is less than one a day, not really enough for increasing TFL to daily without decreasing the backlog. This is another thing to consider. sst ✈ 05:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some categories are being used up quicker, but it's only a problem if they are not being replenished. We do get enough FLs in various other categories for us to run a fairly varied set of lists at the current amount of TFL days. While you are free to make whatever proposals you want, I don't think featuring FLs on DYK is likely to gain much support from anyone. The section itself receives a relatively low number of critiques when it runs, FL writers would feel disenfranchised at losing TFL, and there are probably more editors who would rather remove DYK because of various issues with that process. In fact, quite a few FLs already ran on DYK when they were created; WP:DYKSTATS says that over 600 current FLs have run on DYK at some point. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I suggested allowing FLs at DYK, I meant treating newly promoted FLs the same as newly promoted GAs, providing an additional opportunity for editors to feature their content, not to replace TFL. For featured lists about music/media/sports, the current TFL rate is useless for featuring their content. I cannot see how "FL writers would feel disenfranchised", because they do not lose TFL, they just have a quicker, though less prominent option for featuring their article in addition to TFL. sst ✈ 15:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2016)

Depictions of various deities on the entrance tower of Sri Mariamman Temple, Singapore, dedicated to the Hindu goddess of rain; Mariamman.

Hello, SSTflyer.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Deity

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Monarchies in Africa • Person of the Year

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Barnstar for you!

		The Modest Barnstar
		For your continued efforts in sorting AfDs. Your hard work is recognized. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your move close

Hello,

Could you provide a rationale for your close of the move discussion at Talk:Pomona station (California), particularly in regard to WP:USSTATION's requirement and WP:NCDAB's recommendation of natural disambiguation, as well as addressing the ambiguity of the current title compared to the original? Thanks. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NATURAL says: "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." There is general consensus that the former title is too obscure to be suitable as the title for that article. Also, of the four participants in that RM, you are the only editor who opposed the move. sst ✈ 04:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work clearing out the TfD backlog! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month

Hi, thank you for participation in Wikipedia Asian Month. Please fill out the survey that we use to collect the mailing address. All personal information will be only used for postcard sending and will be deleted immediately after the postcard is sent. If you have any question, you may contact me at Meta. Hope to see you in 2016 edition of Wikipedia Asian Month.--AddisWang (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2016)

New England clam chowder

Hello, SSTflyer.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Chowder

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Deity • Monarchies in Africa

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

DYK for Braemar Hill Mansions

On 18 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Braemar Hill Mansions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Braemar Hill Mansions in Hong Kong is composed of 15 tower blocks of 25 floors each, for a total of 925 apartments? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Braemar Hill Mansions. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools

Hi. When you add AfDs to this page please put them in the right place. The "Schools" section is only for AfDs about individual schools (i.e. institutions that educate pupils at primary or secondary level). AfDs about individual tertiary institutions should be placed in the "Universities and colleges" section. Any other AfDs relating to educational institutions, including articles about programmes, university departments (as opposed to independent institutions), clubs and societies, buildings, etc, should be placed in the "Other school or university articles" section. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HP Stream 7

On 21 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HP Stream 7, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the HP Stream 7 tablet computer, which has sold for as little as $79, was called the "best tablet at its price point"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HP Stream 7. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women's History tagging

Hi SSTflyer. I notice you have been tagging a lot of women's biographies with the WikiProject Women's History banner. But according to the project's Criteria for inclusion, many of them are out of the project's scope. Here are the criteria:

A biography that has met the notability requirements outlined at WP:BIO may be included within this project if it meets one of the following criteria.

The biography of a woman born before 1900 is generally within the scope of this project.
The biography of a woman born between 1900 and 1950 is within the scope of this project if reliable sources discuss her life or career in the context of women's history or as contributing to significant societal or cultural change.
The biography of a woman born after 1950 may be included only if she has exceptional and verifiable historic significance. Spheres of notable activity include but are not limited to: politics and society, law, an art form, the military, labor, education, health, commerce or consumer protection, humanitarianism, sports, or science and technology. "Exceptional significance" should be demonstrated on the article's talk page by a clear and reliably sourced statement of what the person did or achieved that made a lasting contribution to the world.
- In deciding whether a woman born after 1950 should be included by this project, consider that a "lasting contribution" is not fame; the winning of an award; statistical popularity (such as sales); or record-setting, unless a "first" results in a societal or cultural change. Examples:
  - An invention is considered a lasting contribution; a famous haircut is not.
  - Breaking a barrier to women's participation in sports is a lasting contribution; winning a gold medal is a personal achievement that in and of itself causes no necessary change beyond the individual's life.
  - Winning an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress is not a lasting achievement, nor is winning a Nobel Prize; however, the kind of work for which a Nobel Prize is won by definition represents a major advance in the field, and qualifies the laureate for inclusion.
The biography of a man may be included within the scope of this project under the same guidelines, if his role in women's history is a major aspect of his notability, as indicated by reliable sources. For instance, Henry Browne Blackwell, the husband of Lucy Stone, was an activist for women's rights.
The biography of any scholar who has met the notability requirements of WP:ACADEMIC may be included by this project if women's history is a major emphasis of the scholar's body of work. Example: Ann D. Gordon, leader of The Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony Papers Project at Rutgers University.

The Women's History project does not include every woman. {{WikiProject Women}} covers all people who identify as women and their creative works. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Edgars2007:, who created the list. sst ✈ 10:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: There are women, whose biographies here at enwiki have category "X births" (earlier than 1950). The 1950 comes from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women#Wikiproject tagging – bot request. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of CFD for Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates‎

I see that you closed[1] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 15#Category:Members_of_the_Faculty_of_Advocates.E2.80.8E, and marked it as a non-admin closure.

I am writing to ask you to re-list the discussion.

There was little discussion. Only 2 editors replied to the nomination, both briefly. None of the 3 participants appears to have any experience of Scottish legal articles, and the nominator notified neither the category creator nor WT:WikiProject Scotland.

Those deficiencies mean that nobody challenged the false premise of the nominator User:Marcocapelle, who asserted that "Membership of the Faculty of Advocates is not defining".

That falsehood is fundamental to the discussion. Membership of the Faculty of Advocates is the defining characteristic of an advocate in Scotland. For centuries, only its members were permitted practise as advocates before the College of Justice. They have recently been joined by a smaller number of Solicitor Advocates, but the distinction remains precise, and critical to understanding a legal career in Scotland

The renaming blurs the category's precise purpose as a category of advocates admitted to practise before the Scottish court. The renaming widens the scope to include solicitor advocates, and also to include Scottish people who practised before courts elsewhere in the world.

Please reverse the renaming, and re-open the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 149: / Line 149: @@
 :Pinging {{yo|Edgars2007}}, who created the list. [[User talk:SSTflyer|<span style="color:olive">sst</span>]][[User:SSTflyer|<span style="color:black">✈</span>]] 10:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 ::{{ping|Voceditenore}} There are women, whose biographies here at enwiki have category "X births" (earlier than 1950). The 1950 comes from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women#Wikiproject tagging – bot request]]. --'''[[User:Edgars2007|<span style="color:#FF6600;">Edgars2007</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Edgars2007|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Edgars2007|contribs]])</small> 10:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
+== Your close of CFD for Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates‎ ==
+I see that you closed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_15&diff=701262851&oldid=701173638] [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 15#Category:Members_of_the_Faculty_of_Advocates.E2.80.8E]], and marked it as a non-admin closure.
+I am writing to ask you to re-list the discussion.
+There was little discussion. Only 2 editors replied to the nomination, both briefly. None of the 3 participants appears to have any experience of Scottish legal articles, and the nominator notified neither the category creator nor [[WT:WikiProject Scotland]].
+Those deficiencies mean that nobody challenged the false premise of the nominator [[User:Marcocapelle]], who asserted that "Membership of the Faculty of Advocates is not defining".
+That falsehood is fundamental to the discussion.  Membership of the [[Faculty of Advocates]] is ''the'' defining characteristic of an advocate in Scotland. For centuries, only its members were permitted practise as advocates before the [[College of Justice]]. They have recently been joined by a smaller number of [[Solicitor Advocate]]s, but the distinction remains precise, and critical to understanding a legal career in Scotland
+The renaming blurs the category's precise purpose as a category of advocates admitted to practise before the Scottish court.  The renaming widens the scope to include solicitor advocates, and also to include Scottish people who practised before courts elsewhere in the world.
+Please reverse the renaming, and re-open the discussion. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 19:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)