Jump to content

User talk:Femke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sciencewatcher (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 29 December 2023 (→Neuroinflammation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cute little zebra finch

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Antarctica

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Femke:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Illustrative model of greenhouse effect on climate change

An article that you have been involved in editing—Illustrative model of greenhouse effect on climate change—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cooperative discussion at ME/CFS

I do have one request that I didn't want to clog up on that talk page. If you put the first author and the date in a citation reference name I think it makes it easier later down the road when you're scoping outdated information in articles. Ward20 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :). The perennial Visual Editor issue. Will keep in mind to change the defaults to something sensible. Definitely plan to ask for this to be changed at next year's Community Wishlist. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Melvin Ramsay

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Melvin Ramsay you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Melvin Ramsay

The article Melvin Ramsay you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Melvin Ramsay for comments about the article, and Talk:Melvin Ramsay/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maxim Masiutin -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: that was a pleasant surprise, a review without to-dos. I'll surely improve the lead before nominating for DYK. I only need some inspiration as to what fact to pull out. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I reviewed the article and studied that person a little bit. There is very little information available. You've done a great job and covered most you could find during the life. Still, I was more focused on legacy, that's why I mentioned on foundations. Maybe you will be able to visit archives or some other sources where a photo can be found - that would be even awesome! Although an article without a photo would not probably pass FA requirements, but for the GA it is OK since the photo is hard to find. Please consider also doing reviews in biology and medicine sections, not my articles (so we would not be accused in favoritism) but other articles so the backlog will be lower and new reviewers will pick up my articles sooner. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two photos found online of him. I have tried contacting websites that used the better photo, but they could not point me to the right-holder. I was quite surprised how little is written on him, as he's often described as quite foundational for the field. Really had to dig deeply, took me a few hours to get enough for Wikipedia:Notability. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please send me those photos by email (use Email this user option) either as attachments or as URLs Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please move this discussion about Melvin Ramsay on substance (starting from "Thank you very much! I reviewed the article and studied that person" from your user page to the Talk:Melvin Ramsay page so eventual future editors will be aware of our discussion, maybe they may suggest us on ideas about photos. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name article

In case you're interested: I've listed Femke as good article nominee. – Editør (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, cool :). I wouldn't be surprised if a reviewer would like the article to be expanded further. The source you found on https://nvb.meertens.knaw.nl/verklaring/naam/Femme has more information on both the "Frede" part of the etymology and the "mar" part, if you click on those links. Potentially, there may be some more information on the social aspects in the following source; https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/355635. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions and interesting paper! I have just added the Proto-Germanic roots for 'Frede' and 'mar' (using other sources that I found clearer about the root language) and I've added some info from the paper to the popularity section. – Editør (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has just passed the GA review. Thanks again for your suggestions. – Editør (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum featured article size

Do you think this is worthwhile and any ideas please? [1] Tom B (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

@Femke, the evidence suggests the max guideline should potentially be at 10,000, but i'm open to further analysis. I'm thinking of doing a survey/RfC like Wikipedia_talk:Article_size/Archive_6#Should_the_size_guideline_be_removed?, but in the other direction. E.g.

The size guideline of 15,000 comes from a technical limit in 2007, when Wikipedia was in its main growth phase. It is based on a technical limit which is obsolete. Evidence indicates we should tighten the guideline to 10,000 words, to increase quality and readability. [Add evidence from the tables] We could do this by tightening the guidance to 14,000 now, then 13,000 etc every 6 months till the 10,000 evidence-based limit is reached.

I appreciate we'll need to explain the evidence-base more. What do you think? Or is section size a better thing to invest time in? thanks very much for all your help already! Tom B (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing with voice software so excuse the errors.
Hello @Tpbradbury :). I think the evidence is still a too weak to say the guideline should go down. There is quite a focal group of people that this like the guideline as is. I'm sure memory is betraying Me but I think I once suggested that we go down to 12,000 which never got to RFC stage because of opposition. It's quite unlikely that consensus can be reached to go down in size.
In the end, the best way to know what the correct sizes for an article is to do reader research. This could be by selecting articles that are about similar topics that have significantly different lengths and asking readers whether they could find information they were looking for, if they could easily navigate on the page, and a few other questions. Quite a few questions on Wikipedia can be answered with reader research we typically do not have the tools as editor to do this type of research. The Research team at the WMF is quite small, and there is no meta:Community Tech equivalent for research, which is a shame.
I think there are a couple of other places we can make progress to make articles more readable.
Firstly, I think the WP:article size section on trimming and content removal can give more examples of when content can be removed uncontroversially. I've just added the first one, which is about copyediting for conciseness. We can find other examples in existing guidelines on other quality improvements that coincidentally decreased length. I think we surely must have some guidelines about articles that are initially based on news articles, and when the dust has settled can be rewritten from books 10 years later. These books typically leave out all the insignificant details. Leeds are often too long, so it's great if we can get some guidance included in them. Redundancy is something people forget to look out for when they call for a split prematurely.
More importantly, we do not have a guideline on readability, which is quite astounding, Given that we have guidelines on almost everything. @CactiStaccingCrane recently started a Help page on readability: Help:How to write a readable article. I think that page requires some work before it can be strongly linked from loads of other help pages. Maybe we can bring in more aspects of readability in their and includes readability into our accessibility guidelines. For me, articles in overly academic English probably form my biggest accessibility barrier since I've come down with long COVID cognitive problems. Our WP:accessibility guideline is very strongly focused on screen readers and doesn't take into account wider accessibility needs.
Finally, I've been dreaming about having enough time to organise a contest to improve ledes. So many of first sentences Bloated difficult to understand, Pedantic. The rest of the lead is often a bit better but can still be improved massively. Improving and leaders not a lot of work so with some enthusiastic participants we can really make a dent especially we focus on the hundred thousand most read Wikipedia articles for instance. As is, I find it difficult to have enough energy to organise the WP:Core Contest, which I try to do every year. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard of the core contest in years! Fair enough, my dream of shorter articles may have to wait a little longer Tom B (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks for the message and your continued help. it'll progress one way or another. after this is resolved, i was planning to suggest removing the word almost from the guideline, what do you think? it'll very likely need to go to rfc. of the 15 FAs currently over 15,000 words, nearly all are great men of history, Tom B (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typing issues with mobile editing

the reply-tool is buggy (when I start typing, delete my sentence, and continue anew, I can't post). I should really open some phabs for this. You may be interested in the phab I created in Feb 2022, phab:T302083. Good ol' mobile editing. If it fits your issue, maybe go make a comment on it so it gets top of inbox again for the devs :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That very much looks like it's the same! Posted. I never quite know the social norms/jargon on phab. Like, what does it that it's being "upstreamed". Does that mean "on it, no need to further nag us". Or is additional info still useful. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's some document somewhere that says you're not supposed to make "me too!" posts on Phab, but in this case I think an exception is warranted. That ticket needs some activity.
In this case, "upstreamed" means that TK-999 and Wikia copied our VisualEditor's code to make a Wikia VisualEditor. Then they submitted some GBoard-fixing patches just to the Wikia VisualEditor, but not the Wikimedia VisualEditor. "Upstreaming" means also submitting their patches to the Wikimedia VisualEditor. Looking at the code, looks like they've solved the bug, so yes, would be great to get those upstreamed.
If I may make one more suggestion, maybe edit your Phab comment to mention that you're using Android (rather than iOS). Hope this helps :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I made a note to myself a while ago to ask you a question about something. Anyway, I've completely forgotten what it was, but I hope you've been well. jp×g🗯️ 09:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for dropping by here 😊
I've been doing okay given the utter chaos at work / at home. My and partner just bought our first place, and there is a lot of work to do even if you buy a house in a good state of repair and get a moving company to help. With long COVID, it's packing a single box a day, so our current place is slowly becoming a maze of boxes. Looking forward to having a properly insulated place after works are finished in January though.
At work, it's crisis management, as I hired somebody who's not quite up to the job. Also juggling a gazzillion different projects and teaching next term. How I wish I was a PhD candidate again and could actually get research done, rather than project management all the time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hannah E. Davis

On 12 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hannah E. Davis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hannah Davis authored highly cited articles on long COVID while battling the disease herself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hannah E. Davis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hannah E. Davis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY HOLIDAYZ!!

Hello Femke: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jerium (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Jerium (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroinflammation

Just to clarify (as you mentioned "failed verification") the wording comes direct from ref 44 in the Lee review, as mentioned in my edit summary. But yes, it's probably better to either leave it out or just replace with a general neuroinflammation review. What are your thoughts on this? sciencewatcher (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Femke&oldid=1192493843"