User talk:SandyGeorgia

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Buangkok MRT station	Review it now
Starship Troopers (film)	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now

To do

edit

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Request for advice...

I've been planning to bring TRAPPIST-1 to FAC someday and have opened up a peer review as the initial step since I have zero experience with astronomical objects. So far there has been little input, though, at least there.

Separately, I'd like a second opinion on whether it's a good idea to bring this kind of topic there. TRAPPIST-1 is subject to a lot of academic literature [much of it speculative or pre-print] and it's possible that in the next year there will be a lot more attention on the star, if the due-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope finds evidence of an atmosphere on its planets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jo-Jo … I have guests arriving for Christmas, and am avoiding digging in to anything that requires sustained attention until after the 26th. I will have a look then, but if I forget or delay, please bug me here again :). All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else asked a similar question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jo-Jo Eumerus. First, I owe you an apology for the late response. It was not a happy holiday season here due to a death in the family on Thanksgiving, and then cancellation of our Christmas when other family got COVID. We were craving the time together with family, and having to spend Christmas alone wasn't a happy thing for us. So, I spent all of December basically ignoring anything that made me think, and keeping distracted with busy work that I didn't have to think too much about. And I never sent a Christmas card this year (sorry ... I did finally just send thanks to those who sent me a card, hoping that will help me get back into the swing of things.) Since I had to think about this query, I hope my brain is working today.

Second, since I returned to Wikipedia editing following the ugly socking that affected the Menstrual cycle FAR, I haven't re-engaged the pre-FAC PR, which was something I was proud to have helped create. I am less and less convinced that my efforts at FAC have made any improvements there, but am nonetheless willing to review articles for those who have been helpful at FAR and URFA. If there is something I can help with, don't hesitate to keep pinging me, although you know how far behind I can get :)

Looking at the Village pump thread, I have some comments:

User:Phil Bridger said It would be difficult (but maybe not impossible) for an article to pass Featured article criteria 1b and 1e, that the article should be comprehensive and stable, if it was about such a topic. While this may be true, I am concerned that this reflects a trend of misinterpretation or misunderstanding of WP:WIAFA. WIAFA 1e has to do with ongoing edit wars or changing events now, not predicted leading to unstable text; it doesn't mean to say we can employ a crystal ball about future events (will Barack Obama become president, meaning a whole new article, will McCain be elected president, will some future discoveries completely change a given article, etc). If that were the case, I could never write a medical FA, as content changes constantly, and we could never FA an actor, as they always have new productions, etc. On comprehensive, we have to mean comprehensive today-- no crystal ball.
I think Hog Farm's summary of Generally, things that are not "settled" or are actively changing don't make good FAC candidates is good. I may agree with HF, but the dividing line is whether an active and experienced FA writer is on board. FAC knows I'll maintain my medical article even as the science changes. FAC knows you keep your FAs current. We can't expect you to have a crystal ball, but if you were not the kind of editor who kept up with your FAs, I'd expect to see a silence in terms of support (since opposes have to be based on the criteria, not what we wish the criteria were).
I looked at the two SpaceX Starship FACs, and I think the nominator somewhat misunderstands the level of problems there. The responses there reinforce my two points above; it's not 1b and 1e per se in that article but much more that raises concern, which was expressed as 1b and 1e, and I have no doubt that you would not bring an article to FAC in such an unfinished state. Those are the kinds of FACs that should be getting shut down on day one, providing faster turnaround for the nominator, and better allocation of scarce resources at FAC.

So, all-in-all, I don't find any valid reason for there to be opposes in your case because of something that could happen sometime in the future. We can only apply 1b to now and today, and we can't foresee future changes in any area. That doesn't assure you'll get support, though, as the shortage of reviewers at FAC has passed critical levels. All the best, always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the shortage of reviewers at FAC is past critical levels. It's not as bad as the shortage of copyeditors at WP:GOCE/REQ or reviewers at WP:GAN, and probably similar badness to the NPP backlog. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scary stuff ... it's everywhere :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buh. COVID-19 is everywhere - even our Christmas celebrations spent half of the time discussing the coronavirus. My condolences.

I wouldn't agree with I am less and less convinced that my efforts at FAC have made any improvements there I think that your contributions at FAR were quite useful at bringing that process back to life. On the SpaceX Starship thing, I actually saw its PR and recruited someone I know from offsite who is interested in the Starship project to help them.

To be clear, my issue with TRAPPIST-1 isn't so much whether it'd fail 1e but more on whether the amount of updating work that would be needed is too much. I mean, discovering life on any of the TRAPPIST-1 planets would surely result in a tsunami of new research; do your medical articles get similar ground-breaking discoveries? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus; my apologies for the late response (as you can see, I have been distracted elsewhere), as I never responded to your final question. I don't know how you manage to keep so many FAs updated. I think the medical example that most resembles what you must go through is the 2013 rewrite of DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5. That one publication/rewrite meant that the entire psych/neuropsych suite needed updating, and some of the changes were so considerable that we lost, for example, both autism and Asperger's syndrome as FAs; the only editor who could have/would have updated the entire site (Eubulides) is long gone. On a lesser scale, when the new consensus guidelines for dementia with Lewy bodies were published in 2017, they required a major rewrite of DLB, which I undertook beginning in 2018, and spent several years on, so yes, we do have examples of full rewrites needed, but the more common scenario is the month-to-month dribs and drabs of incorporating new reviews. From that angle, medical work is probably far easier than what you do, because we can simply go to PubMed and restrict our search to recent reviews (and Pubmed makes that easy to do), and pick the highest quality, where you probably have to sort through everything new. I guess I'm saying-- hats off to you for the work you do, and more, for the fact that you do it, while some FA writers let their articles fall out of date. I'm sorry to have not been more help of late; hopefully once the Rowling FAR is closed, I can return to more active reviewing elsewhere. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to admit that if I were to get much more FACses/GANs passed at some point it might be too much for me to maintain. Doubly so if I were ever to find employment. So I wouldn't take my annual updates as granted - in the future I might need to space them out.

Thanks in advance for any future review help. I am dallying with sending Ojos del Salado here but it's a tough decision because I don't have access to all the sources. And on TRAPPIST-1 or Proxima Centauri b I have never written an astronomy FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neurodiversity

Hey Sandy This is about The Wikipedia Neurodiversity Page I am the originator of the concept of Neurodiversity. I want to contest the whole page as it is both full of errors, out of date, and subject to a mess of hostile edits and rewrites. Can you tell me how to proceed? Judy Singer What is Neurodiversity? Jsinger (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jsinger, I suggest you start by identifying specific examples of what you consider wrong and/or outdated information and post on Talk:Neurodiversity. You can use the {{Request edit}} template on the talk page to request specific edits. (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jsinger thank you for registering an account. I have been extremely busy on another project that required my full attention, but I should be able to give you some answers tomorrow or the next day here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

Hey SandyGeorgia,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Janbery (and Sdkb), but you can save the postage, and I will be content with the picture. No one at WMF has my name and address, and I've resolved lately not to even give that info to T&S, but I do appreciate the thought. If it's possible for me to donate my t-shirt to Sdkb, or someone else, I would be interested, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second Sdkb getting this shirt, then. Haven't they done enough to deserve one? Just sayin'. Panini!^🥪 17:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the program is expanded in the future at some point to allow for virtual gifts that wouldn't require you to disclose your address, I'll certainly have you in mind for that, as you deserve the wikilove! For now, if it's possible to do a transfer like that, I would very graciously accept. Thank you so much

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Then I shall email them to see if that is possible, bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please keep me posted if t-shirt is received. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; thanks again!

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb my Wikipedia notifications are telling me I have an email from you about the t-shirt, but there's nothing new in my inbox ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, odd; I haven't sent any new email. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I never figured out how those irritating notifications thingies work, and I'm in a hurry, and .. I just realized it is dated days ago. Mark All Read! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb did you get the darn shirt? I tend to use my talk page as a To Do list, and don't want to archive this until I'm sure it's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard from them yet; I'm sure they have their hands full from my large group nomination, so it might take a while. There's no rush, though. Thank you for checking in! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Saint Vincent Beer/archive1 may be of interest to you or your talk page watchers. A short article about a beer that reveals a weird time in US history. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero now that looks like a fun article that will be a pleasure to review! I will get there, once I get a bit more of the Rowling pieces tied up (still have some writing to do). Should I forget, please do pester me here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PANDAS

Moved to Talk:PANDAS § Recent revert

– SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PANDAS Parent, per your username, please review WP:COI and consider whether you can edit neutrally in this content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biblio

(Feel free to move this section wherever you like but I wasn't sure where to thread it.) Should I convert the dates in the bibliography into hard-typed dmy format or were you saving the ISO dates for sorting later? The DATEFORMAT script doesn't seem to be doing it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think ISO dates work better for tables as they all have the same size ... in fact, I think somewhere in MOS it mentions something to that effect ... and they're sortable ... so I would leave them. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I think that's also why the date script leaves them ... they are preferred for tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Will leave them be. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FASAs to close without awarding

Hey Sandy, the reason I opened a FASA for The Million Dollar Homepage was because it was sitting on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/FASA as a pending nomination. I don't want to have articles sitting there indefinitely. You expressed that it would be better not to open a FASA in a case like this, so how should we decide what or when an article should be removed from the pending nominations list? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was your thinking. Back when we were playing catchup on 2021, I listed them all on talk just to help get us going, but I feel like if we open a nomination, only to reject it, we are sending a negative message. I would say just ignore the old ones I parked on talk; we can set up talk archives. The pending nominations ... aren't really ... until someone nominates them, while the open nominations are decided by the Coords. Does that make sense ? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the less we open, the less for the Coords to have to close; that is, we only "open" a nomination if we intend to nominate, not reject. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should go through the ones that are left there then: if one is to be opened, we can open it, and if in a week there's nothing we can delete the list and move on. Hopefully for future keeps someone will be on the ball and nominate a FASA if need be. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went through them last month, and nominated all I thought warranted; moving forward, we just keep up as FARs are archived as Kept. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About revert

Hi Sandygeorgia. Thanks for your up-to-date and complete article (DBL), In connection with reversing my edit, The first image I added had the aspect of beautifying the article, but second image, Examines the epidemiological aspect of dementia with lewy bodies among other dementias (Age<65); and this statistic was not mentioned in the text of the article. I don't understand your reason for finding it unhelpful. Please explain a little, thank you Pereoptic ^Talk✉️ 08:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did that already on article talk; the images were only decorative and the epidemiology contained data not mentioned anywhere in any recent secondary review (see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE), and from a ten-year old review on a different topic (early-onset dementia). Images should not be used only for decorative purposes. See Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related, reveals, this is concerning (not accurate even in 2016). Maybe someone has time to stub it, or I can get to it when not iPad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone's been dicking around with the citation templates again

See [4]. Took me forever to figure out what "generic name" is. At least for some, it's because editor, (ed), or ed. is put somewhere into the author's name parameter of the template. But I've also seen one where the author literally had the first name Ed and it flagged it as an "error". I personally sometimes think that the people who do this to us content editors should be required to write 2 FAs for every mostly useless change they make. Hog Farm _Talk 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<groan> ... I will have to look at this another day, as I'm already trying to get out of a foul mood. Maybe we can get Nikkimaria after it; she loves that sort of thing just as much as I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised a concern at VPT, maybe someone there can fix this. For some reason, it doesn't always make the red error flag (O. G. S. Crawford is one, I think it's flagging that (revised) is in the author parameter instead of an edition parameter). Hog Farm _Talk 22:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. After this "RfC" the CS1 templates were updated to detect a whole swath of "generic" names in author parameters. There's an incomplete list at Category:CS1_errors:_generic_name of what is considered "generic", and a proposed "fix". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also drafting in my mind a proposal to suggest creation of some sort of noticeboard where major citation template changes can be posted ahead of time, rather than be discussed on an obscure talk page somewhere and then suddenly unleashed on everyone like a Kraken. Hog Farm _Talk 22:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been down that road before ... I seem to recall having left Wikipedia in a huff over this sort of thing more than once ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, you might want to take a look at the VP thread I linked in combination with this response. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is there enough consensus on that "RFC" for changes (like this, which happen often) with such wide-ranging impact. Will it never end. Rhetorical; it won't. A couple of editors own us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into this at Chagas disease. Apparently it is meant to catch newbies doing things like adding "Facebook" as the author of an article, but it seems to flag any organization name, even when it's entirely appropriate to list an organization as an author... Spicy (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looking at the page Nikkimaria linked I suppose it's the 'collaborator' in 'Global Burden of Disease Collaborators'. Not sure why this is worth adding a big red error message to 30,000 pages, even when there actually is an error... Spicy (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worse bug testing that even Microsoft. Hog Farm _Talk 22:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost track already of what threads to follow where. If I do this today, I will likely walk away again, so am going to ignore until in a better frame of mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I need to step off, too. I left a few "extracurricular" sentences on one of the comments that probably fall under the "think but don't say" category. Hog Farm _Talk 22:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extracurricular, huh; so that's what you call it ? Just don't say the word darn, or you could end up ANI :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading over that bug report area, it apparently flagged "Hauser" because it contained the string "user" ... Hog Farm _Talk 22:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and fixed mine. (grumps) I think I got all of them? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite book}} also now treats the volume param differently, which seems like unnecessary churn to me although less disruptive than the above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lay-source and lay-url are now deprecated, so I have to go fixing, all over creation, for one of the most useful parameters cite journal provide. Why do we put up with this? RexxS stood up to them. I don’t know why we don’t, except that one never knows where. Where did they get consensus to remove lay-url ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion linked from the update notes is this one... Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, two or three editors, discussing in a backroom, get to remove something that affects … how many articles and other editors? I Do Not Know Why Wikipedia Continues To Let This Happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be time to start a larger community discussion -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because "two or three editors discussing on a talk page" is the normal, everyday practice for Wikipedia?

@Hog Farm, the designated noticeboard is Help talk:Citation Style 1. There are 130 active editors watching that page, which is only slightly fewer than the number of people watching Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When WAID thinks this is "normal", something's gotta give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 (whatever that even means) has always been the domain of pretty much one editor, who gets to change things that broadly affect all of us without so much as a prior notice anywhere. Nikkimaria this has been going on forever, but I don't know where to find all the pieces. Are you able to come up with a list of past examples? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FA CCI followup

AHHHHHHH!

I kept on saying I would get around to helping with your several questions at the FA sweeps, but I never got to it. Either something would happen on wiki, or I would get distracted doing revdels and following up with warnings, or some contrived wacky loony-tunes thing would happen intrude IRL. I feel really guilty, I'm really sorry. Given all the pings, I figured I'd just respond to the unaddressed ones here instead across several pages:

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Tropical Storm Allison/archive1 - copying there were no drowning deaths in flooded homes isn't ideal but I'm struggling on how to rephrase it. When I'm thinking of rephrasing something instead of removing it I try and read the source to get more context on what I'm removing. In this case I didn't find doing that helpful and the copying is minor enough, so I don't believe it needs to be removed. It's not essential that A tropical wave moved off the coast of Africa on May 21, 2001 needs attribution but you may as well- I've now done so. I'm of the opinion that cool offshore sea surface temperatures is brief enough that it does not need attribution, on the other hand.

Here, where you say In this case, the first two iterations of the article did contain public domain text without attribution, but that has since been rephrased, so I assumed (??) that attribution in the article was not needed- yeah, it's not needed, and your check on that article was excellent.

fF you have any other questions or I missed something, please ask- I promise I won't take so long to respond... Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 06:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody drowned/died in the flooded houses? (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work, thanks! Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]