Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by T224murray (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 18 January 2024 (→Pacific War Revision: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

  • New partner:
    • Perlego
  • Library access tips and tricks
  • Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of spoken version of Germany

Hi, you reverted my edit adding a Spoken Wikipedia version of the article on Germany, with only the comment "trim". Can you please justify that action? morrisjm (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi morrisjm, that version is wildly out of date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is it about it you feel is so out of date that nothing is preferable to it? I listened to it, I feel like I learned a lot about Germany, and I don't think I heard anything that was factually inaccurate to the point that it should be un-published. morrisjm (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That recording is from 15 years ago; every single section has changed since then. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image "licence" query

Hi Nikki - could I ask your view on whether this image can be included in a GA? The copyright holder (the British Library) sell it, but for £0 for web use: the page reads "Images can be used for free, Please credit: Courtesy British Library (followed by the shelfmark)." Is that good enough for an upload to Commons, in the absence of a formal CC licence? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, if the library were indeed the copyright holder, that statement would not be sufficient to allow its use. But are they? Have a look at commons:COM:ART - if the original work is in the public domain, the library would not garner a new copyright just by scanning it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the very speedy reply - funnily enough, that runs us into the other problem I'm trying to solve on the article. The source is a (very) old book (16th century): does it count as "published" if it's that old and produced by hand? Otherwise, I'm wondering about PD-ART, but my read on that would be that the page needs to have been 'published' as an artwork and PD, which would mean essentially that it's been displayed open to that page in a museum for the last century or so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't automatically count as published just by being old. Couple of other options to explore: commons:COM:PACUSA, or failing that commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that tracks. So I think we've got three options:
1. If the illustration from the book has been "published" by being printed and made available widely (e.g. in Penguin Classics or something similar), and that happened before 1928, we're good for PD-US-EXPIRED.
2. If the illustration itself has been displayed somewhere public that people can make copies of it since at least 1928, we've got PD-Art|PD-old-90-1923.
3. If we can show that the book has never been published in a format that a general reader could buy, we've got PD-US-unpublished.
Otherwise, we probably need a new picture. Have I got that right? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially yes, although 2 is a little more nuanced, particularly since such a publication would most likely have been outside the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Unfortunately, I think this is going to be bad news for the picture, but I very much appreciate your time and expertise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a thought: given that the image is available online, that's surely publication within the meaning of (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered, and so PD-US-UNPUBLISHED won't be applicable? Or does it only count if the author never published it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Publication is technically an exclusive right of the copyright holder, but most online digitizations postdate 2003 anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find A Grave

Hello, Nikkimaria.

I noticed you've undone a lot of links to Find A Grave on many articles. I'd just like to say first and foremost is that it IS a very useful and reliable source, and it has been used on many other articles besides ones i've edited. I kindly ask that you please undo any reverts on the matter and refrain from removing links from Find A Grave in the future. Thank you. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OmniFrieza994, the community consensus is that that source is not reliable - see its entry at this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is confusing "user-generated" with the actual facts. Point in fact - you removed the Rev William Boyd, yet the source clearly shows the grave and its inscription. People find graves and report them, yes, but that does not make it unreliable per se. Unreliable implies fiction, fallacy and error. Where exactly is the source demonstrating that it is error prone? In genealogical circles it is consiodered a very useful resource. So far I have not identified any misleading pages, which does not mean that it could not be abused. I just have not seen any evidence that it has been. Please restore the sources for Crimond Church. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉
On review, I think the better solution would be to remove the list in question entirely, since it lacks reliable secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot claim to have done an exhaustive review of the discussion on FAG, I would dissent from the view that there is a concensus - though I see you have been very active in this topic. There is actually quite vigorous and helpful debate. Of the 6 pages referenced for its status, one confuses it with findmypast. The status symbol is curious since it primarily refers to living subjects which this site clearly does not. Like anything else on WP, all stated facts should be treated with caution and crosschecked where possible. We can be too pure. As far as that specific list goes, having some knowledge of the topic, it seems accurate but I agree should be sourced, which I had started to do. Usually round here, rather than removing unsourced content, we tag them. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 02:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the designation at RSP is incorrect, I'd suggest you raise it there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious though - why did you take the list out of the cemetery page and then simply remove the sources from the killer pages? I spent hours going through FaG to make that list. You could have just taken the sources out and left the list in-place. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you took time to build it, but if it's based on an unreliable source it doesn't belong. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't answer my other query - why leave the statements on the killer pages but not the cemetery? You left that the killers were all buried at the cemetery on their pages. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they should be removed I have no objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So will you put it back up, perhaps with FaG sources removed? OmniFrieza994 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - it can't be restored without reliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Find a Grave#Usage guidance is more specific about when that website is not to be relied upon: "While photographs of gravestones provide useful information, the biographical and other additional details may not be reliable."  As noted above by @OmniFrieza994: for "Rev William Boyd... the source clearly shows the grave and its inscription." If it is the photograph of the gravestone itself that is being shown/cited/quoted, and not the user-generated text on that page, what's the factual ground to call that "unreliable"? – .Raven  .talk 05:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the primary source that was being cited, and citing primary sources has its limits - Wikipedia is meant to be based on secondary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If photographs are "primary sources", we should delete all photos from both Wikipedia and Commons. Somehow I don't think that's our policy. Now, posting the original, physical, gravestone itself here would be a primary source... but I don't think that's technically possible. – .Raven  .talk 07:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a photo of or otherwise copying a primary source doesn't make it a non-primary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then so much for "photographs of gravestones provide useful information". Do you intend to edit that template documentation? – .Raven  .talk 23:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Something can be "useful" without being a reliable secondary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not supposed to actually use them.... – .Raven  .talk 01:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with the OP here. I see that, Nikkimaria, you removed a FaG reference I added for Donald Watson's spouse's year of death in the Infobox for that article. It is ridiculous that a photo of someone's actual gravestone featuring their date of birth and death cannot be considered as 'reliable' to report that information here on WP. FindAGrave is a marvellous resource and it's this kind of snobbery around projects which are in fact very similar to WP in their ethos and results which, in my view, only undermines WP itself as a resource. The community consensus here is wrong in my view. Just as it is with FreeBMD.org.uk which is literally transcribed entries of the Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths for England and Wales. Somehow also perceived as 'unreliable'... Songofachilles (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Wikipedia Library Application

Hello, you approved my application for the British Newspaper Archive on the Wikipedia Library earlier today. I received an email with a coupon code to gain access to the database, however when I tried entering it at the provided URL, I received a message that it was invalid. Not sure why this might be. I had previously registered for a free account on the British Newspaper Archive, maybe I need to make a new one? Thanks. Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hockeyben, I'll follow up on that and get back to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wondering if there has been any progress made here. Thanks. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 20:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not - there have been some other reports of issues so the access has been waitlisted pending that getting sorted out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Hopefully things get resolved.--Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 00:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I opened a new application as instructed in an email I received. Would you be able to approve it? Thanks. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 03:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastview for WP:TWL

Dear Nikkimaria, thank you for all your hard work over the years and the work you continue to do. I'm a long-term collaborator / editor often on issues where our systemic bias counts against us, and I saw today that Kges1901 had suggested at WT:TWL that we consider asking Eastview Information Services' whether they might allow access to their extensive range of online databases?

"..They have a wide range of newspaper collections that cover areas such as East Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe that are not currently included.. Adding access to these newspapers would help with addressing Wikipedia's systemic bias.." [minor paraphrase].

I think this is a great idea!! If I wanted to encourage TWL and its backers to get these resources added, how would you advise me to start? Many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckshot06, I'd recommend starting at the Suggest page - Eastview has already been proposed there so you can upvote it to increase its prioritization (and plus if it is brought on, upvoters get notified). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your very prompt and useful pointer!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave

It is a sharp irony, is it not, that Wikipedia's lack of welcome for Find a Grave as a reliable source is on the basis that the content is "user generated".

Wikipedia is also user generated – with its credibility asserted by citations – but in some instances, as in this one, photographic evidence is equivalent to a reliable source: such credibility is high. The likelihood that someone would use artificial intelligence to create a fake image – or take a photograph of the headstone in a different cemetery – is remote.

It is pretty galling that in such a tiny graveyard I could find the headstone within one minute – especially since its location is precisely identified at the Find a Grave website – and I could take further pictures of it myself for uploading to Wikimedia Commons which would be acceptable for inclusion in the article, but I could not include my physical visit as a reliable source citation, despite seeing the gravestone with my own eyes!

I have formerly provided my own headstone picture at the John Stanislaus Joyce article – and this complies with Wikipedia policy.

Anyway, I have adjusted my entry to comply with the WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL policy by including it, instead – and as permitted – as an external link!

Collisions between bureaucratic rules and stark physical reality – usually between a citizen and the bank or between the citizen and the government – are notorious. Cheers. O'Dea (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave should be blacklisted. On a side note...Should not trust headstones for dates Wilson, Scott (2016). Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons, 3d ed. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4766-2599-7. Crawford, Joan (Lucille LeSueur, March 23, 1904 – May 10, 1977) San Antonio born film star.... Her ashes were placed in the vault beside the coffin of her husband, with the crypt listing her birth year as 1908. Moxy- 03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The headstone details of someone who died recently and the details of whose death are not obscure but are well known by the family – and by the public at large in the case of a public figure – are highly likely to be accurate. The family of the deceased would detonate in rage and insist the stone carver provide a corrected inscription, including a new stone if necessary, if they spotted any error, as they certainly would.
Historical burials, especially those where the details of death are hazy, such as that of a soldier who fell in a large, chaotic battle, or where someone was murdered and their body found years later, are another matter. O'Dea (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can put anything they want on a headstone. Moxy- 11:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is, indeed, the point of headstones; you get it. The bereaved get what they pay for, otherwise there would be no point in forking out cash to the stone carver. O'Dea (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joan Crawford#cite note-birthyear-1: Crawford's year of birth is uncertain, as various sources claim 1904,[1][2][3] 1905,[4][5] 1906,[6][7] and 1908.[8][9] Crawford herself widely claimed 1908 (the date on her tombstone).[10] Crawford's daughter Christina states "1904" twice in the biography Mommie Dearest, published in 1978.[11] – .Raven  .talk 08:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping what I wrote at Crawford's page is clear to all. Moxy- 11:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Data from the 1910 census should be the decider between those dates, although even that can't be considered truly definitive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably at the time she was 2–6 years old, (a) she was not then trying to minimize her age, (b) the discrepancy would have been far too obvious to anyone who saw her, and (c) her parents – who likewise presumably had no reason to change her age – would have been answering the census-taker's questions. :) [full disclosure: former census-taker; former census local supervisor] – .Raven  .talk 03:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: For the second time in less than a month, I have found that published authors and Wikipedia contributors have jumped to the conclusion that a subject died in his retirement community, while the admittedly unreferenced data in Find A Grave is correct that they died elsewhere. With a little effort, I was able to find references to confirm the alternate location for both Henry Clark Corbin and Edward Bancroft Williston. – Maliepa (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Lee (businessman)

Nikkimaria, I hope you are well; it's been a while since I've posted here.

The nomination in the section header has had at least one reviewer mentioning concerns of plagiarism (and where in the article); I was hoping you could check to see whether anything concerning remains, and whether the sourcing issues also remain, though that's usually not your remit. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24th mechanized brigade

So since we shouldn't to be bias to one side can we put the claims of the 24th mechanized brigade being wiped out but then say that it's been disputed by Ukrainian and Western officials Salfanto (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately you would need reliable sourcing for either claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2023



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Stuart (actor), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lend Me Your Husband and Smashing Through.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bird, Savage & Bird

It appears you removed two family trees from Bird, Savage & Bird. Your justification was "cull". By doing this you have deprived the readers of a vital visual tool to help understand complicated family relationships. Can you explain why you decided to take this action?

Sidpickle (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sidpickle, Wikipedia is not a genealogy reference - family trees should be included only when relevant to understanding a notable topic, and there's no indication why that would be the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is YOUR opinion. You know nothing of the topic but make a decision like this arbitrarily. The first tree WAS most definitely relevant to understanding the topic. It delt with the intermarriages between merchants, financiers and the American influencers of the period just after the War of Independence and the connection to Bird, Savage & Bird. These people were connected with the early development of America as an independent nation and corresponded with the likes of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Not a notable topic you say? See a typical letter to Treasurer Hamilton https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0172 The second tree may not be directly germane to the topic but does give some indication of where the Bird family fitted in society of the time. I suggest perhaps you should look at it again.
Sidpickle (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've looked at it again, and I agree with your second point: the second tree is not directly germane to the topic. As to the first, there is text summarizing the relevant claims still present. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too much?

Permanent residents chart .....add a bit more data...thus drop prose of In 2021, India, China, and the Philippines were the top three countries of origin for immigrants moving to Canada.....see User:Moxy/sandbox.. - Moxy- 23:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd end up pushing the following image down, and I don't think it's worth it for one sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

Hey, I see you've been trimming and removing a lot of content in your recent edits. What is "fmt" as mentioned in Richard Montañez: Revision history, and what's the reason for pruning those citations?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Monta%C3%B1ez&action=history Spagooder (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spagooder , "fmt" is an abbreviation for "format", as in amend the format of the citations to match those already in use in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. So I'm wondering how to best present one of the citations on there, the podcast with the editor's note. 'Cause it's not just the content of the podcast, which can be found on other platforms, but also the info in the editor's note, like some 2-in-1 citation. Spagooder (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best approach would be to cite the general episode link rather than specifically the transcript. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the transcript, the editor's note, they're on different pages. Spagooder (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But the URL of the podcast episode allows you to access both the note and the episode itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images at Peralta Stones

I think all of the images posted to this article are problematic. They seems to be lifted from a published source elsewhere - a book that seems to be maybe out of print but that I cannot access online - but Google Image search is also polluted by the WP/Common results. The Commons uploader only uploaded the images in 2013, they have made no other edits other than the Peralta Stones article images. I have been unable to find where the images originated from but they do have a copyright asserted by the website desertusa(dot)com in 2014 and the website's overall copyright dates to 1996. DesertUsa asserts on some of its images "Courtesy of the Superstition Mountain Historical Society" but I was unable to find any of the images on the Superstition Mountain Historical Society's website, which now seems to be https://superstitionmountainlostdutchmanmuseum.org/.
Could you maybe take a look at some of the images and reply back here with your thoughts? Here is a link of LatinHeartReader's contributions to Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Latin_Heart_Reader I don't want to put them all up for deletion because of possible/probable copyright infringement if that is not the case. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, any help, etc. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted about this at Talk:Peralta Stones#Images. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shearonink, there's a couple that are okay, eg File:PERALTA_STONE_EQ.jpg is too simple to get copyright protection whether it originates from the user or elsewhere. For the others, you can browse through the old versions of the museum site to see if they include those images. I wonder also if they might have been taken from the video mentioned at the DesertUSA site - the quality issues may have arisen from screenshotting a moving image. Unfortunately I can't view the video to verify that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potatoes in thanks

Some potatoes
Thank you for your thorough image review for Stravinsky, I'm much more familiar with copyright standards now, and greatly appreciate your guidance throughout the process. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, better luck next time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red July 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon (Comments)

Dear Nikkimaria, you are one of our top Wikipedians, an administrator, FA coordinator, expert on image copyright issues, you name it. Why do you remove my comments on thepeerage.com? It is deprecated and one should cite the references given in thepeerage, not thepeerage itself. I find it still useful for quick cross-checking. It is about as reliable as what I write in Wikipedia. I feel it is below your dignity as a venerable Wikipedian to waste your precious time on deleting my comments, but I probably must be glad you did not at the same time delete my family tree, my timeline, my footquotes, and most of my other contributions. Are you sure you are improving Wikipedia? Yours sincerely, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your analysis errs on several points, most important of which is this: deprecated sources should not be used for cross-checking of anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria. Thank you very much for your reply. WP:DEPRECATE says "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles". It does not seem to forbid its use for all purposes (e.g. my "cross-checking"). I have never used ThePeerage as a source for a citation, but I have used it for several years for drawing and checking family trees in aristocratic biographies in Wikipedia. Its rigourous design makes for quick navigation. I only once found a mistake in it where St Germains in the U.K. was confused with Saint-Germain-en-Laye in France. Perhaps "cross-checking" is not the right word. My English is 2nd language. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are describing using the site as a source for developing content on Wikipedia - whatever term you use for that, it's not something that should be done, because of its questionable reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwiching images

Hi Nikki. That issue hadn’t occurred to me (I’m using a tablet so maybe the images seemed more spaced out and sandwiching wasn’t presenting itself). The images were also there before I’d seen the article so probably assumed it was reading ok. I’ve kept the places commonly associated with London (Buckingham Palace, Harrods, Abbey Rd) while trimming off the others. Para Clark (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Para Clark - there's also a pending talk-page question for you when you have a moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires IV

Hi, I noticed that you removed the fandom wiki links for AoE4. I want to know the reason for it.

I linked it specifically because anyone wanting to know more about the game can directly visit the dedicated wiki for it. Obviously Wikipedia cannot have everything regarding the game. Sauravt2812 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sauravt2812, the reason is that per our external links guideline links to open wikis should generally not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am stumped!

I was trying to figure out why I can't get a Table of contents onto my user talk. (I mainly tried the magic words of __TOC__.) If you or one of your talk page stalkers have the chance could someone please take a look at User talk:Shearonink, post here in reply and tell me whhhhyyyyy. Please don't go ahead and correct my mistake (which I am sure is perfectly clear to everyone but me). Just post the solution here and let *me* correct the coding etc. on my page - otherwise I'll never learn. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) The TOC is now - and I don't like it - hidden in the symbol preceeding the header "User talk:Sh..." (or any other article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but - keeping in mind I am not a coder at all - "hidden in the symbol" isn't making sense to me. Why can't I see it? Why can't I find it? Why can't I link to a subsection? I was trying to link a possible Talkback & couldn't link to a certain section on my user talk... Thanks, signed "I Pretty Much Only Really Edit Text Around Here" or Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it when you click on the symbol. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I can link to a section on your talk, such as User talk:Shearonink#In appreciation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shearonink, you can't generally have more than one Table of Contents per page using the magic word, and you've included that magic word in User:Shearonink/note which is transcluded to your main talk page. That one is taking precedence over the one for your actual talk page. You have a few options for dealing with that, depending on what your personal priorities are. You can remove the transclusion of the /note page entirely, and just link to it. You can take the magic word off of the /note page, which if you continue to transclude it will result in all of that content being included in the main talk page's TOC. You can remove the magic word from the /note page, change the heading levels on that page, and add a TOC limit on the main talk page - that will keep that content out of the main talk page TOC, but also hide the TOC in the transclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Italy and Italian literature

Hi, I need a favor. I saw that you fixed the articles Italians and History of Italy, and I would like to ask you if you could fix (so as to remove the tags), also the articles Cinema of Italy and Italian literature. I would like to do it, but I'm not so familiar with the English Wikipedia policies (I'm mainly active on the Italian Wikipedia). Greetings. --LukeWiller (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I can try, but it won't be for a while yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the answer, at least I'll ask some other users. --LukeWiller (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Help Requested

Hi,

You once helped me out with an article I was preparing and I recall you were very competent with citation formatting. Not guilty (I hope) but I noticed on an article I was editing some of the citations were broken. Could you have a peek for me.

The article is Irredentism and it a problem with an sfn template Kornprobst. Hope that makes sense. WCMemail 15:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WCM, should be fixed now? Unless you've got a reason to do otherwise I'd recommend using year for all book refs - more specific usually isn't helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my doing but will take that on board. WCMemail 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W. B. Yeats

Just asking. StrongALPHA (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, see the talk archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2023



Headlines
  • Albania report: CEE Spring Campaign 2023, Albania and Kosovo
  • Asia report: Donation of images from the National Centre for Biological Sciences
  • Brazil report: Native Brazilian photographer wins Wiki Loves Folklore Brazil 2023
  • Croatia report: Half done in 2023
  • Germany report: Museum tour, WLM, handouts and image donation
  • India report: Wiki Exploration Programme GLAM activities
  • Indonesia report: Conclusion of Mini Grants; Second #1Lib1Ref Campaign; Wikisource Workshop in Bali
  • Italy report: TCI and Turin Academy of Science
  • Kosovo report: CEE Spring Campaign 2023, Albania and Kosovo
  • Netherlands report: A new book, new Wikipedia articles, videos and further images on Africa
  • New Zealand report: Report on the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections Conference 2023 and Auckland suburb updates
  • Philippines report: GLAM outreach activity at University of Nueva Caceres: Digitization, workshops and proofread-a-thons as future collaboration
  • Poland report: GLAM-Wiki workshops for the Czartoryski Library; Work on the GLAM-Wiki Project Page Continues; End of Internship within the "Praktykuj w Kulturze" Program
  • Sweden report: Knowledge overview; Almedalen week
  • Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Programm
  • UK report: Cultural diversity
  • USA report: WikiWednesday returns to Manhattan; Wikimedia NYC and Art+Feminism; WikiConference North America 2023; GLAM Wiki 2023
  • Special story: Flickr Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation partner to build Flickypedia
  • GLAM Wiki conference report: The call for proposals is now open for the GLAM Wiki Conference
  • Calendar: July's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring some faith

I recognize that I got unusually unhinged at WP:LENGTH, for the reasons I gave, and I can transparently admit that my reaction stemmed from the habit of placing reader-visible templates on articles that do not give our readers actionable information to evaluate the article. However, you clearly took effort to address the problem that you raised, and that doesn't happen enough around here. I often talk about how respect is earned, and however inconsequential it may be, you've earned mine. Thank you. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kebbon

Date ranges on the Eric Kebbon page for the lives of Eric and his wife Jane were confirmed by the findagrave.com website as it included photographs of the gravestones showing the dates. Information from such a source is not "non-RS". 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jane's page doesn't include any photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad with Jane. Please fix the error you made when you deleted one space too many, however. 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you spotted the deletion error. Your link to "Who's who in the East and Eastern Canada" does not provide any useful information, however. 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It confirms the subject's date of birth, marriage, and number of children. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I know this from the link provided? 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the excerpt it provides. You can also confirm from a print copy, if the online version is inaccessible to you - GBooks tends to be geographically or otherwise limited. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I follow that link I get "preview unavailable". Consider another source. 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that this entry was so poorly organized and sourced. I am glad that you are paying attention to it. 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can get out of Google Books is this low res image https://books.google.com/books/content?id=NXIhwNMdOqQC&pg=PA610&img=1&pgis=1&dq=kebbon&sig=ACfU3U3Yr8o1G11or5YJo_FPHCE5il4Zjg&edge=0 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but looks like that contains all of the claims it's being used to support, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen it's not quite a complete entry. How many lines are cutoff? This is a really good source otherwise. So much good stuff — affiliations, dates, specific buildings. 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the same entry was republished across multiple editions so you might have luck looking up a different one. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Figure out some way to make the full entry on this reference visible and I will update Kebbon's Wikipedia entry tomorrow. I have no affiliation with this person, but I have seen his buildings as an architecture fan in NYC and was saddened by his Wikipedia entry. 2603:7000:9500:F800:54B:2C18:8332:BD49 (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver flag

Hi there. I thought I'd contact you following your comments here. The deleted Vancouver and Calgary flags were are used on wikiproject banners on the French Wikipedia, fr:Modèle:Portail Vancouver and fr:Modèle:Portail Calgary, which are now showing those jigsaw puzzle icons. I raised the matter here but would you have any recommendations? Thanks. (Please don't respond on my enwiki user talkpage, I am not active here any longer.) Shawn à Montréal (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shawn à Montréal, the simplest solution would be to swap in an alternative image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman republic citation management

The Working Woman's Barnstar
I wanted to make clear that I heartily appreciate the work you've been doing related to the article on the Roman republic: converting the citations over to {{sfn}} is something that is worthwhile and also much less glamorous than normal creation. Ifly6 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close FAR?

Can Wikipedia:Featured article review/Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season/archive1 be closed? It was a "procedural" nomination for an article that went to AFD, and the AFD successfully closed as delete. IMO the discussion can be safely speedy-deleted as housekeeping/uncontroversial, unless there's possibly some record-keeping need to keep it around. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet ... the talk page should have had a {{G8-exempt}} for recordkeeping, and now we need to have it WP:REFUNDed before bot processing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Gacy tag

The article has well over 600 watchers, and attracts several thousand daily viewers. Your tag this time around indicates the article may "interest" a particular audience. I also note there has been nothing upon the talk page to accompany your tag to invoke discussion. Thought Wikipedia was an impartial encyclopedia. Topic-wise, everything is referenced and if we are to adhere to the original tag you placed upon the article in the early hours of yesterday, I would hope some forms of suggestion as to "splitting content into sub-articles" can be suggested and attained.

There is no similar tag on the 9/11 article on Wiki. or the Joseph Stalin one. A Teahouse entry would be welcomed. Kieronoldham (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kieronoldham, I'm not sure what you're proposing by "a Teahouse entry"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect place to resolve disputes beyond a talk page, Nikki. :) Wikipedia:Teahouse. Aside from examples listed prv. (and I could add more), the article is extremely and extensively referenced. Beyond maybe the efforts to identify his victims post-1986 with DNA I fail to understand how a Wiki. article of this nature can be spliced/segmentized.
The Teahouse is very much not an appropriate place for resolving disputes, which explains why I was confused by your mention of it :) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a place of initial inquiry/suggestion, of course. :) (I knew you knew this.) So you can understand why fly-by tagging is of concern for me. Not least if unaccompanied by a talk page message which in many areas will lead to stagnated banners decades old. So you can understand my concerns. Needles to say, those hopefully on a talk page proposal will resolve this? --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roundhouse tv show

Hi, why a gravesite not a reliable source? What would be the appropriate source to prove someone’s death? Thanks 2600:6C64:427F:39F0:878:4897:7A6B:F119 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, a gravesite itself can only be used in very limited circumstances to cite what appears on it. In the case of Roundhouse, the content you're wanting to add is largely not within those circumstances: it's talking about his medical history, the show's production history, and surrounding publicity. That kind of content really needs secondary sourcing in order to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

  • Suggestion improvements
  • Favorite collections tips
  • Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Angell

Hello, I have started a discussion on Talk:David Angell on whether a consensus exists to add a cause of death to the infobox. I have also laid out some of my arguments of why I think it is appropriate.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave

Stop removing all external links to Find a Grave. WP:RSP#Find a Grave: "Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia." Sundayclose (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sundayclose, I am not removing all links to Find a Grave. However, as indicated at WP:ELPEREN, it is rarely acceptable, and if you believe it is in a particular case it's up to you to demonstrate consensus for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point, perhaps because I didn't word it well. I mean stop removing the links without good reason. As the link I provide above states, they are sometimes permitted. And no the burden is not on me when you are inappropriately removing them. If you will be more judicious we won't have a problem, so please stop. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are a regular so I won't template you. Review WP:EW and stop edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sundayclose, I have good reason, and yes, the burden is on you. See WP:ELBURDEN: "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Since you haven't achieved that, you shouldn't be restoring links. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop edit warring. I see you have a few blocks, so I hope you will avoid another one. Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sundayclose, you're doing a lot more warring here than I am, and you still haven't achieved the consensus required to restore disputed links. If you disagree with any removals, it's on you to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus is required. The link is permitted on some articles. You can remove some links to Find a Grave, but you can't remove all of the ones you have removed. Now, I'm finished here if you keep repeating yourself. Sundayclose (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sundayclose, I wouldn't need to repeat myself if you'd read what you'd already been told. Per WP:ELBURDEN, "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them" (my emphasis). That means until you obtain a consensus for keeping these links, they stay out. You need to stop restoring them if you're not willing to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FA source review third opinion?

Nikkimaria, the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/archive1 and I are disagreeing on the reliability of two sources - the Reynolds book and the Proulx thesis. Would you be willing to offer some brief thoughts there? Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help in shortening article

Hey. I wanted some advice on how precisely to shorten up an article. I was initially in disagreement about shortening articles. However, I realize you are right, that most long articles have unnecessary info and a number of errors and need improvement. I wondered if you could guide me a little bit, whether there is a link which guides on how to shorten articles. I could not find one on my own. Thanks. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnis Scientia, WP:SUMMARY has some how-to information for relocating content, while WP:STREAMLINE (although focused on a particular type of article) is useful for identifying unnecessarily wordy phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

Sorry, could you explain me where the article Italy shhould be cut more?Thanks. Simplyred90 (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We cut more. We looked for collaboration. Simplyred90 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
now introduction is very short.We are waiting for your opinion. Simplyred90 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Simplyred90, the issue isn't the introduction, it's the article as a whole - at over 22,000 words it's in significant need of being condensed. See WP:SUMMARY. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why remove find a grave?

I don't understand why you remove find a grave website of Adolphe Le Prince Vwqvj qwhiu (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vwqvj qwhiu: See WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Riel

Genuinely confused, is there a reason why Historiography of Louis Riel shouldn't be linked to the Historiography section of Louis Riel's page? XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XTheBedrockX, given the current state of that article I don't agree it would be beneficial to be pointing to. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it still make more sense to try and improve that article instead of just removing the link to it altogether? I completely understand that pages to important topics being poor quality is frustrating (I can relate to that, and I admit Louis Riel is not someone I know that much about), but I don't know, just not linking to it at all seems confusing to me, that's all. XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree it would be good to improve that article - I just think we should wait on linking to it until that happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I guess that's fair enough. XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2023

Women in Red August 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280


Online events:

See also:

  • Wikimania 2023 will be held in Singapore, 16–19 August, and will be facilitated by the
    affiliates in the ESEAP (East/South East/Asia/Pacific) region.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Percy Grainger

In 2013, Brianboulton announced on my talk his idea of a compromise "identibox" as in Percy Grainger: DOB, POB, DOD, POD, and why a person is known. The facts about birth and death are standard for a biography. In the English Wikipedia, the places can be omitted in the lead, because they can be found in an infobox, - if there is one. People will link between Samuel Barber and Gian Carlo Menotti. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was his implementation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
later this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need another RfC, after Mozart and Wagner (to mention only a few), for Cosima Wagner (who doesn't even fall under the "classical composers" clause? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my answers at article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But those came before the Wagner (and Mendelssohn) consensus, which changed things - for me at least. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I can tell. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I looked again, and your last statement was "We've discussed above how the proposal does a poor job of providing a summary of what is truly key about who she was", while my view is that it is not the objective of any infobox to be a summary of what is truly key about who she (or he) was, - which I believe even the lead can't achieve, nor the article. It's purpose is simply to place certain information in a predictable position, like when and where she was born and died, and why we have an article about her. From the closure of Mendelssohn (where you also reverted): "it is not up to us to control how our readers read". An infobox doesn't replace the lead but eases conveniently the access to some information, such as where a biography is placed in time and location (like an opera plot says where and when a scene plays). We even have a script now available that transforms an infobox into an image with caption, serving those who don't like its looks. So why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had information about how to suppress display in the MOS for years before that conversation; the new script may be more elegant but is no more of a solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it is not up to us to control how our readers read" - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every decision we make, from what articles to include to what words to link, impacts how our readers read and interact with our content. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While true, it doesn't help me understand the resistance of what looks to me like a tool for those who want it (and many have expressed that in discussions) while taking nothing away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you delink a capital city, you remove a tool from at least someone who wanted it (otherwise it wouldn't have been linked in the first place). Same for deleting an article, removing a section, etc. We do this because we think to do otherwise would be a detriment in some way. Think of any case where you disagreed with a deletion, where you thought obviously we should have this article/section/image/etc but others thought otherwise - how is this different? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I delink a capital city, I follow the MoS, per WP:OVERLINK. I don't see it as an analogy in any way. It can be only linked or not linked. An infobox, however, is an additional tool of easier access. I don't see it as detriment, ever. But I see that others do, and those could be helped by not showing it to them, - it doesn't have to be removed for all, then missing for those who want to use it. Too simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS is just a summary of what some agreed we should do or not do in a general case. A link is an additional tool of easier access to a different article; an infobox can be there or not there. If you could tell ahead of time who would be helped by either and who would not, and show either to only those who would be helped, great - but we can't. And if we say you who have accounts and know how can choose to hide them, we ignore those who don't have that option, and those who take that option lose the ability to appropriately steward the article for those who can't. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not simple, I'm afraid. Talking about a woman who was a festival director, what stewardship would be needed, - what would be wrong in showing when and where she was born and died (giving her a place in history at a glance), that she was a festival director, and of which festival? It would take nothing away from the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings us right back to the previous conversation - which, again, hasn't changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy here with Renata Scotto, and in RL with company, Mahler's Second yesterday and Fourth today. Brings me back to the beginning: can you consider restoring a short infobox for Cosima Wagner, an article by Brian, whom I know as open to compromise, inventor of the identibox, and having given us a model by accepting the 2015 community consensus for Chopin, restored by the community just recently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said last time, unfortunately we can't ask Brian what he might be open to. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this true statement has anything to do with the line above it. We see what Brian did when alive, for example this (repeated diff); - I see that he accepted a consensus in a discussion, and implemented it, in 2015. I see that he used the proposed template, not insisting on the way he had used as an identibox in 2013. What do you see. We could do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that when it was first proposed for Cosima, he said this: "Would a reader wanting a "quick overview" really learn from it anything significant beyond what is in the first paragraph of the lead? ... The danger is that infoboxes can stand as an alternative to reading the text, and thereby give casual readers an incomplete and sometimes inaccurate picture of the subject". I don't see that he changed his mind in respect to that article, even when presented an opportunity. And I don't see what you do in 2015. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this was in 2012, and that he criticised parameters such as place of schooling and place of cremation, which are obediently not part of the latest 2023 suggestion. In 2013, seeing that infobox disputes should be reduced (my interpretation, because he came right after the conclusion of the infoboxes case), he offered short compromise versions for both operas and persons. In 2015, he established the consensus of a short infobox for Chopin. I conclude that he agreed to such a box. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, even after 2013 or 2015, he made no change here, nor withdrew the points made here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had he done that, it would have raised insecurity for the situation for Richard Wagner, and I believe that he would not have wanted that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you think this is what he would have wanted instead? To ignore his words and those of his colleagues, based on what he wouldn't have wanted happening at Richard Wagner? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that nor think that. I said he was ready to accept a consensus, and we could do the same. I accept the consensus for Debussy, for example, although it's not what I want. It's a key question: how can we balance the wants of the principal editors and those of the community? I asked the arbcands as you probably know, but no answer. I'll keep asking until we find a way to reduce discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I want to Ask Something Regarding the Tsukiuta Page Edit....

I noticed you removed all citations on that page which were from the translations of drama CDs posted on Tsukiuta Wiki. Can you please tell me what I should do if I want to cite sources from Drama CDs?? I haven't been able to find any official translations or audio. I really think having citations directly from the Drama CDs would improve the article. If possible could you help me with this? Do you know of any official channels of Tsukino Production where they might have content related to the Drama CDs?


Thank you. The dragon under the bridge (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The dragon under the bridge, open wikis are not considered reliable. You are able to cite the CDs directly, but you need to be careful about what you're citing to those - primary sources can't be used for any sort of interpretation, for example characterizing the characters' personalities. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. My question is how can I cite directly from the CDs? Which citation type will I use and how can people be able to verify it? The CDs are all paid so obviously they are not available openly. What do I have to do if I want to directly cite from CDs? what will I link them to? Is there any method or procedure to do that?
by the way, thanks for the response. The dragon under the bridge (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can use {{cite AV media}}. The fact that not everyone can access the CDs doesn't matter, per WP:SOURCEACCESS; what matters is what you're trying to cite to them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I understand now! I have looked up that template and have also found an official website where the CDs are available for purchase. Is it fine if I change all my previous citations which I had taken from fandom wiki translations to AV citations? I feel like doing so would improve the article! The dragon under the bridge (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, you can't cite any sort of analysis to AV citations - only straightforward facts that can be understood just from the works themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them are some sort of analysis. Most of them are facts that you can confirm easily by listening to the drama CD. For example, in one of Aoi's and Yoru's drama CDs, they talk about how they like to read books (and much more), so it's pretty obvious that it's their hobby. However, I think I'll check whether the facts stated are directly included in the mini-dramas. It's gonna take time though. The dragon under the bridge (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torah Readings Pages

I note that you have added a template to all of the articles on Torah readings criticizing the amount of external links. Is it the "External Links" section in particular that you find excessive? Would you view some smaller number of external links there as appropriate? I note that you also have added a "too long" template to several of the articles. What length would you consider appropriate? Thanks in advance.--Dauster (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dauster, the issue with regards to external links is that the articles have links displayed within the body of the article - per WP:EL they should be either in references or in the external links section at the end, not in article text. As to length, see this summary and the linked page for guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thus understand your diagnosis of excess external links to be triggered by external links to Biblical text citations. This is a practice in use on Wikipedia since 2005 without criticism. The remedy that I understand you to propose--to drop a footnote to a link to an online Biblical text whenever a Biblical citation is employed--would seem to be more inelegant than the inline link to an external source used in these articles. Once again, please let me know if I am reading your criticism incorrectly. Thanks again for helping to make your objections clear. Dauster (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dauster, that is indeed my objection, although not the only possible solution - we could for example choose to omit links entirely. But I'm not familiar with this being an accepted practice, given what's recorded at WP:EL and indeed at the template documentation for {{bibleverse}} as well. Could you point to a guideline or consensus discussion regarding that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I appreciate your spelling that out for me. Dauster (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Aurora's section deletion in Norway's page

Hello Nikkimaria, from what I've gathered you seem quite experienced and professional on Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing out the deficient sides of my recent contribution to the Norway's page. I should improve myself on giving better and much credible sources on Wikipedia, I'll work on it from now on. However, you also pointed out 'undue weight' as the second reason for the removal of my contribution. I have read through the meaning and examples of undue weight but I couldn't understand how Aurora's implementation into the music section of Norway is considered as undue weight. She has objectively reached to over a billion people and is one of the only people to represent Norway in Academy Awards with a song, in addition to all the music and concerts she has performed worlwide, introducing to Norway to new generations.

How can her accretion into the page be considerd undue weight considering her major international achivements? I fully understand that it can be sourced so much better and professionaly, but wanted to ask this part specifically. I would be glad if you can help me understand. Thank you very much. Juleswinter (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juleswinter, mentioning her would be fine - my concern was with the amount of content relative to the article as a whole. Think of it like this: we have the general article Norway, which is meant to provide a high-level overview of every aspect of the country. We then have the narrower subarticle Music of Norway, which covers the topic of music in Norway from inception to present. Then within that we have additional subtopics. So in the high-level Norway article we really only want to say notable modern performers in this genre include this person and that person, with elaboration like what you added left to subarticles (or the person's own biography) per WP:DETAIL. Does that make sense? (I realize the preceding paragraph currently in the article doesn't follow this rule, which may have been confusing - the article in general does need tidying up). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, the preceding article regarding a brief summary of Ylvis, the Norwegian group and their success is what made me want to add Aurora in such detail I presume. I can see the vision you have for Wikipedia pages, it makes sense. However also, wouldn't you think, covering areas about a country and its subtopics in such detailed manner (without exaggeration and with quality sourcing) gives the reader a richer and much comprehensive understanding of a country, and the aspects that make that country internationally known?
After I was done reading the whole Norway's page a month ago prior to my register to Wikipedia, I felt sufficiently equipped knowledge-wise since the page covers variety of topics about Norway, some in a very specific and detailed manner, that really made me appreciate the years of work that went into it and made me appreciate how culturally rich the country is.
I suppose I'm saying this because Aurora alone has carried and spread Norwegian culture in a such way over the recent years that caused millions of Gen-z people to get to know Norway the country itself that I felt like she deserved at least a few sentences in the country's page alone instead of a single worded mention.
Thank you for taking the time to answer and review. I do appreciate your work on Wikipedia, cheers! Juleswinter (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Juleswinter, the idea is to serve both the reader who wants a broad overview (with the main country article) and the one who wants a richer understanding (with the subarticles). I think to that end we could go with a sentence about Aurora's impact in the main article, if you wanted to add that with appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and work on a brief and adequate sentence to summarize her impact with quality sourcing. Thank you once again. Juleswinter (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Motorsport and WP:TOOLONG/WP:TOOMUCH

Hi. I noticed the discussion you started at Talk:Kimi Räikkönen. I agree, however I don't believe the best approach right now is to go article-by-article. This is an issue which first needs addressing at at least WikiProject-level as I also point out truly atrocious articles like Tony Kanaan and Kevin Harvick. As a long-standing editor active in various projects, I believe your words would carry much more weight than mine in such a discussion and you have my support if you feel taking this to another venue is appropriate. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GhostOfDanGurney, thanks for the note. I'm not sure I see the value of a Wikiproject-level discussion when there is already project-level guidance regarding this issue, per CONLEVEL. Could you elaborate on what you're thinking about? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwood Festival Of Speed Edits - Appearances in Media

I noticed twice you removed my edits to the Goodwood Festival Of Speed page, specifically about the Goodwood tracks in Gran Turismo. Most of that content was already there, and had been for some time (The initial addition of that section was March 23, 2016, and numerous edits had been made since), but when I corrected it since they had gotten which tracks were in which games wrong, you quickly removed it. I tried to re add it back, minus the citation of the Gran Turismo wiki, but that was removed as well. Why is the whole section being removed?

It is true that Gran Turismo featured those tracks, so why remove the whole section instead of adding something along the lines of "citation needed"? Honmeg (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Honmeg, "appearances in media"-type content needs sourcing that doesn't just demonstrate that it exists but shows that it is significant, per MOS:POPCULT. I don't think such sourcing exists for this particular claim, although of course if you had some it could be re-added. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of sourcing would be the kind you are looking for? I'd be happy to find that. I'm just curious why my edit was the one that got the whole section removed after years of it being there? Honmeg (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was the one that happened to get noticed ;-) Does the explanation at POPCULT help? Basically we'd be looking for a source that is reliable, secondary, and provides in-depth coverage of the article subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on Winnipeg Article

Hello, first of all, I'd like to appreciate your edits on the Winnipeg article and other contributions throughout Wikipedia especially on Canadian topics. Before you revert my edits, I am wondering what's the exact reason you have reverted my past contributions in converting the cluttered section by organizing it into a concise bullet list? This has been done in various major Canadian city articles and has been well received by other editors. I am somewhat surprised by the revert from you. You will notice that with my edits, I have effectively cleaned up and organized all the older sporting events in a chronological order. Unless your intention is to further elaborate on each event (which no one has done yet), it just seems more logical to just list them. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Kazuha1029 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kazuha1029, I don't agree that a bulleted list is better organized than prose, and think it would actually make more sense to go the other way and leave some of the less significant events to Sport in Winnipeg or similar. Unfortunately lists like this tend to accumulate more clutter than they are intended to solve. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally agree with you on keeping them in Sport in Winnipeg. However, in this case, all the sporting events I've listed are quite notable. It's probably the most important sporting events in Winnipeg history, including the most recent 2023 World Police and Fire Games (please see the number of athletes and categories of sport, this is huge for Winnipeg, maybe less so for Toronto/Vancouver). There is also no question on 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup's notability not sure why you removed it. I would also note the two hockey events to be very notable given hockey's importance in Canada. The last thing is Canada Summer Games, which is also one of the largest sporting event in Canada (despite National). As such, I would recommend all to be added back to the Winnipeg main article.
You can't deny the edits I've made had significantly cut down the space and word count compared to the previous edit.
The bullet list is updated continuously. For instance, in another 5 years, we'd likely remove the 1990s games. I have gone ahead and reverted your edit. - Kazuha1029 (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kazuha1029, I definitely would not agree that the police-fire games are even close to "the most important sporting event in Winnipeg history", at least at this point (number of competitors does not determine importance). I don't really want to deny anything related to word count, because that's not something of concern at this point. But I will continue to deny that your choice to move to a bulleted list is an improvement on the previous organization, and would ask that you self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think the section is cluttered and something has to go. I would recommend removing the second paragraph. Former/old hockey teams that no longer exist should be in the Sport in Winnipeg section. These are part of the city's history and do not enhance the reader's primary need of information. Do you agree with this?
I would also ask you to please read the article on 2023 World Police and Fire Games. with 8,500 athletes from 50 countries in 60 different sports, this is the largest sporting event hosted in Canada this summer.
I would also ask you not to ask me to self revert. The 5 events were there already prior to my edit, all I did was convert it to bullet format. You introduced a major edit by moving the entire list to Sport in Winnipeg without consensus. That should not have been done. Anyways, if you agree with what I propose above. This point is not relevant.Kazuha1029 (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with removing the first sentence of the second paragraph (the rest of it is current). I do disagree with the assertion that large is equivalent to important. And I continue to object to your conversion to bullets, and will continue to ask that you revert it; your proposal doesn't fix that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your reasoning why you think these events are not notable, as I have provided mine above. Size of event equates more staffs, volunteers, security, venues, complexity of event organization, media attention, etc, if you can't really see how that contributes the importance of the event, I am not sure what to say. Secondly, if you object the use of bullets, I will convert back to paragraph. However, do note the 5 events are to stay. They were there prior to my edit on August 3, so by converting to paragraph the content does not change. I would also move the two hockey events together with the rest of the events as it was previously buried up there. Do we have a consensus? Thanks. - Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kazuha1029, please do revert to the version that appeared prior to your edits. As to the events themselves: I didn't say they were not notable, but simply that at this point we are not able to assert the significance of the fire/police games to Winnipeg's history. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BoF and Reflib

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for your work on Bibliography of France. I'm curious whether you were thinking of using the BoF article as a ready reference to find citations for articles on France-related topics you plan on working on, or whether it was a straight-up split to create a new article for the usual reasons. On a tangentially related topic, you may be interested in looking at Template:Reflib: there may be some possible cross-pollination there with BoF. At its core, {{Reflib}} needn't be tied to anything about France, but because the projects I was working on happened to be all about France when I came up with Reflib, France topics (two of them, so far) became the core topic area for the Reflib template. I plan to add more domains, not necessarily about France; just wherever there's a need. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the link. My intention was mostly to consolidate some of the lengthy Further Reading sections into a centralized comprehensive bib. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human trafficking in popular culture 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/Human trafficking in popular culture 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.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2023



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

OTD

August songs
my story today

Thank you for Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, made my topic for 9 August. May music triumph over military. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about the Inkpot Madonna who returned to "her place" 9 years ago, and also has aspects of early learning, remember? - You supplied an interesting link to further past then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I heard a delightful concert, "Himmlische Freuden", remembered having heard Vilde Frang (Bruch concerto, in Zürich, with my brother's orchestra) , and succeeded in preparing Renata Scotto's article enough for the Main page (which took two days). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today is Debussy's birthday, as you will know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cottingley Fairies

Hi, I apologize for not explaining my edit before in Cottingley Fairies - the reason I changed the text of the line about the rediscovery of the photo published in The Sphere is that I think that as of now it's misleading as to why it is thought it might indicate a broader conspiracy potentially involving adults other than the girls. The fact that the two other rediscovered photos appear to be "poorly executed copies" of the CF photos is misleading because the established timeline shows that it is highly unlikely they were "copies" at all when the CF photos were not seen by anyone outside the family until later. So the point is that this implies that maybe in fact it's the other way around - that the CF photos were actually better executed copies of those, and that the claimed 1917 date of the first two photos was a lie meant to obscure this. Does that make sense? This is all laid out in the paywalled Skeptical Inquirer article but the author of the book first explaining this writes about it in this blog post too: https://folklorethursday.com/fakelore/curiouser-curiouser-100-year-old-cottingley-fairies-hoax-just-got-better/ -- DanyaRomulus (talk) DanyaRomulus (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanyaRomulus, I'm not sure I follow your argument relative to your edit. If as you suggest they are better copies, to whom does it appear they are poorer? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears they are poor copies if you assume the first two photos were really taken in 1917 as claimed. But the whole point of the argument is that according to the official narrative of events, no one outside the family knew about the photos until the girls' mother/aunt mentioned them at the Theosophical Society meeting they attended in 1919. Thus raising the possibility that in fact the photos that appeared to be "copies" were actually what inspired someone (perhaps the photographer father) to make more convincing versions and claim they were really photos of fairies, unlike the one published in The Sphere which didn't make such a claim. DanyaRomulus (talk) DanyaRomulus (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I don't think the edit you made makes that argument clear - is there an alternative phrasing that would work better, or perhaps a quote? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox person with Wikidata

Hello Nikkimaria, I've started using the {{Infobox person/Wikidata|fetchwikidata=ALL|noicon=on}} format rather than manually inserting infobox information (which seems like a pretty robust and handy way to use the data we have in Wikidata), and am now wondering if there is a reason not to do this. (I ask as you recently reverted my addition of this format here.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases (as in that one) the previous version was as good or better, so there's no value in replacing; there are also issues around things like sourcing quality and policy differences between projects. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox on Barry Spear

Hi. Please show me in the template documentation where it says New York City must be used instead of Brooklyn. The only documentation I see refers to the elimination of redundancy as in the case of "New York City, New York, United States" when "New York City, U.S." conveys essentially the same information more concisely." That example indicates the elimination of the twice used, thus redundant "New York", to make it more concise, which is not the same as being more specific by specifying Brooklyn. Perhaps there is additional documentation I am missing? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FieldMarine, "Place of birth: city, administrative region, country" - NYC is the city. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Does that make sense to you, not spefificying the borough in NYC when it is known? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time

Hello, Nikkimaria. I'm working on getting Liz Truss featured article status, but am still in the preliminary stages. I want to crack down on the tricky things first; as I don't plan on adding or changing any images, if you have any spare time, could you check if the copyright on them is sound? Everything looks above board to my amateur eye, but you're the expert here, and I want to get it out the way before the FAC. Again, if you're not interested or don't have any time, I understand. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, just as a matter of style, I'm not a big fan of having so many 2022 official portraits (and holy heck that's a lot of navboxes). I'd also suggest adding alt text where it's lacking, removing fixed px size where it's used, and avoiding anything pulled out next to a blockquote.
In terms of licensing, I'm questioning the logic of File:Official_portrait_of_Liz_Truss_(cropped).jpg: "All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated" - but the Flickr link does state otherwise, so wouldn't that take priority? It's probably on a government website somewhere so finding that would be the easiest way to sort that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will take this into consideration. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I've now taken Truss to PR. Feel free to comment, if you'd like. The prime ministerial portrait issue remains unresolved, and I'm hoping for someone with more expertise than I to take a gander at it. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Military School

Please revert back to my original wording of "leap of faith" as it best describes the huge risk than James Risher in fact taking to purchase subject property in the midst of the "Great Depression", or at least provide your rationale to change it to "Risheroffered". Again, I do believe the term "leap of faith" best describes that aspect of the history of my alma mater perfectly - as I have done some extensive research on the subject in the creation this page. If no rationale is given for your edit then I have to insist on an arbitration, particularly if your edit without has no any reason other than you personally may not like the term "leap of faith" - which is sort of universal, especially for anyone who flies (or even goes down in a submersible to see the wreck of the Titanic). Additionally, for the many who attended Carlisle, Colonel Risher was in fact it's guiding force for nearly half a century, and as this is a fact, why would this need to be deleted in your edit. And one other deletion was the word "reunion" used to describe the April, 2018 event. It was in fact a reunion of all classes as well as a commemoration. So please provide some rationale for these deletions in your edit. Thank you for your interest in Carlisle Military School and your consideration for those particular phrases I used that - aside from their particular meaning to Carlisle alumni - is an accurate use of the proper words to describe factual aspects of Carlisles history. SandHills (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandHills, I have corrected the typo to "Risher offered", thank you for drawing that to my attention. Note also that I did not delete the word "reunion", simply changed it to lowercase. However, I cannot agree to wording change you propose, as Wikipedia is meant to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for that correction. And while I don't fully agree on the "encyclopedic tone" determination, I understand and csn agree that certain words/phrases on this subject page may reflect a tad more warmth and emotion than more cooler and dispassionate wording would/could provide But since these survived any edit since they were originally written in 2015 I have to take some satisfaction in that. So if these changes are meant as corrections meant to "maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone" standard for wikipedia, can I also expect the removal of the template message? SandHills (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately more editing along those lines would be needed first. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So can I expect more editing by you? As I only assumed you made those specific editing corrections based upon those points/rules/standards you used as your rationale - more than nine years after those words and phrases were originally written. And while I accept your rationale for those specific corrections, I am fairly satisfied with everything else on this subject page that is largely, if not wholly, referenced in documentation obtained by my research...it's sort of hard to correct/amend/censor non-neutral or non-encyclopedic articles, quotations, etc - some over a century old - in order to meet a fairly recent and non-specific standard regarding "neutral and encyclopedic tone" now being enforced. I guess in regards to the subject matter covered in the Carlisle Military School page I can live with that template message after all. However, I will take some umbrage if any documented factual events about the history of Carlisle are changed/deleted to meet this standard. SandHills (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the template message is to support this concern being addressed, whether by myself or someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pleading the belly

Hello
We seem to be in a slow edit war over this: I’ve made a compromise/middle ground edit (per WP:BRD) and opened a discussion here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced?

Special:Diff/1171748845. What do you mean "misplaced" ? Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this is not the place to get into the weeds of why status quo may not be preferred in certain cases. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why removed those citations?

hey you recently removed 2 of the citations on the Page 'Ali la Pointe' and your edit summary was "rm inline EL" so, what do you mean by that? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faraz Sualeh, I've never edited that page, did you perhaps mean a different one?
Generally, per this page, external links (EL) should not appear in the article text - that edit summary refers to removing these. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oops by mistake I linked other page lol,
I was talking about the page 'Little Omar' and external links are allowed in some cases and I had just put 2 of them coz they were having a bit of importance related to that page like i mentioned about Labourer Laknan Abdullah who was a spy to the French the guy who showed the hideout of Algerian Freedom Fighters but since there was no info about him on Wikipedia it's obvious I had to link it with an external article(also I can't copy paste) bcoz then it would've been off topic coz the page was of Omar and i would be writing about Laknan Abdullah doesn't feel right na... Faraz Sualeh (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Faraz Sualeh, no, generally external links are not allowed inline, and the site you're linking in that case is not considered a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i know it's not reliable but sometimes an unreliable source provides true information as well anyways I got it... 👍 Faraz Sualeh (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lost RFC

Could you point me to the RFC referred here? The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Doom Patrol, it is here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023 at Women in Red

Women in Red September 2023, Vol 9, Iss 9, Nos 251, 252, 281, 282, 283


Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • The books she wrote might be notable, too; learn 5 quick tips about about book articles.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Halifax Explosion in popular culture 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/Halifax Explosion in popular culture 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.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#Population of cities Moxy- 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query on removal of content

Hi, Can you please let us know why this content has been removed? This shows the career path of the child actor. Rishikuppa (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rishikuppa, material added to Wikipedia, particularly in a biography of a living person, needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet cuisine

  • curprev 12:23, September 2, 2023‎ Denis tarasov talk contribs‎ 9,324 bytes +6,915‎ don't delete correct article or I will contact administration, read the Russian variant updated since your last visit undothank Tags: Manual revert 2017 wikitext editor
  • curprev 12:10, September 2, 2023‎ Altenmann talk contribs‎ 2,409 bytes −6,915‎ Reverted 1 edit by Denis tarasov (talk): PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE UNREFERENCED text. Thius is a violation of Wikipedia rules undo Tags: Twinkle Undo Reverted
  • curprev 12:09, September 2, 2023‎ Denis tarasov talk contribs‎ 9,324 bytes +6,915‎ restored vandalised undothank Tags: Manual revert Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
  • curprev 12:01, September 2, 2023‎ Altenmann talk contribs‎ 2,409 bytes −6,915‎ Reverted 1 edit by Denis tarasov (talk): Rm unreferenced again. a sporadic vegantrekker.com ref is not WP:RS for wikipedia undo Tags: Twinkle Undo Reverted
  • curprev 11:43, September 2, 2023‎ Denis tarasov talk contribs‎ 9,324 bytes +6,915‎ restored vandalism undothank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor

August 23, 2023

  • <...>
  • curprev 11:33, August 23, 2023‎ Altenmann talk contribs‎ 2,432 bytes −7,131‎ rm huge original research tagged for references since 2009 undo

Denis tarasov is restoring unreferenced text without engaging in discussion in talk:Soviet cuisine#Restoring of massive unreferenced text. Please intervene. - Altenmann >talk 19:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Altenmann, I'd suggest posting to WP:3RRN. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is not over 3RR yet. Besides, I think the user must be educated by an admin about WP:RS and WP:VANDALISM. He also arbitrarily uses vandalism tags, on my page, as well as elsewhere: [1] -- in this case the accusation not only misguided, but in fact wrong: the reverted editor entered the (IMO) correct IPA for a Latvian word (without reference, though, but it looks like there is a huge leeway for referencing IPAs). - Altenmann >talk 19:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like @DanCherek: is already attempting that at the user's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Denis tarasov ignores it. How long do you think I have to wait until I restore my edits, so that I will not be slapped with a warning as well? - Altenmann >talk
It doesn't look like he's made any edits since that post, so it's possible he has not yet seen it. I'd suggest waiting to see how he will react. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On editing infoboxes

Hello Nikkimaria ok here is the thing i wont raise the issue now i wont revert your reverts but like here is the think we have many heads of state and of goverments with extensive infoboxes i dont see why they should be collapsible also you told me to go to the talks page like set up three diffrent talk pages . Listen i have nothing agaisnt you but like everytime we try and do something will get reverted it is pointless for us new editors there is no win for us here . What i am supposed to do ? why should anyone edit here if its gonna be guarded 24/7. Could you give me some advice ?Friendlyhistorian (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Friendlyhistorian, as I said, my advice would be to go to the talk page and try to get consensus for what you want to do. If you don't want to go to the individual talk pages for those articles, you could also try the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality

Did you even read my Edit summary? Simply reverting my addition doesn't help HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your edit summary, but I'm not sure what additional help you need. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London

Hi @Nikkimaria, I notice you rolled back my London infobox additions on demography and GDP. May I ask what was wrong with them please? They were all cited. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dgp4004, the template is already quite long and details are better discussed in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. There is now no area reference but I'll not change anything back. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear

Hi Nikkimaria. I hope that things are going well with you. I would be grateful, if you have the time, if you could have a look at the image licensing for polar bear, which is currently at FAC. Or, for that matter, anything else to do with the images you would care to comment on. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, looks like there's already a passed image review there - was there something you were concerned about? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. You are quite right, the image review was passed the day before I queried you and I missed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2023



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Books & Bytes – Issue 58

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

  • New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
  • Tech tip: Filters
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for the great rewrite of Manhattan § Geography. Sorry people are being so dramatic in the RfC.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A request

You're good with trimming down large pages, and the Conservative Party (UK) greatly needs it. 109.147.138.27 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-did part of edit you reverted

Hi, I recently saw that you reverted by edit to Netherlands because I changed British English to American English. I understand the revert, however in that edit I also changed "in the south-west of the Netherlands" to "in the southwest Netherlands", so I re-did that part. I am just telling you so that you are not surprised. TypoEater (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank DeArmon Whitney

I'm an idiot. I reverted too far so you had to do your ce again. Sorry! Knitsey (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Valerie article - Findagrave as a source

Hi Nikkimaria,

I'm fairly new to editing, so I appreciate your guidance. Is a Findagrave entry/ picture of a headstone not considered a reliable source? In this case, the exact date of death for Gladys comes from the headstone, and I haven't been able to find any other source that provides that. With that source removed, there's no source for her exact date of death (only a month and year in the Social Security Index).

Thanks

NickyNZ NickyNZ (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NickyNZ, thanks for pointing that out, I missed that the exact date wasn't in the SSI.
Generally speaking, Findagrave is not considered reliable - you can see some links to previous discussions about it in its entry here. More broadly, we try to avoid relying on primary sources, particularly when any kind of interpretation is necessary or when it's unclear that sources are referring to the same person. I've tagged the article in the hopes that more non-primary sources can be found to back up some of the claims being made. (I did some searching myself and found that there were other people with similar names who had similar lifespans, so it's very possible we're mixing up two or more people - that's an issue that can arise with primary source use). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for that clarification, I can see I have a lot to learn. I was at a loss on how to provide proof that "Gladys Valerie Barth, nee Hays" was indeed the same person as Gladys Valerie the film actress. I found an article in which she mentions that her mother is Edith Hays, and then the clincher for me is when I found that her address in the 1920 census (as Gladys Barth, occupation moving picture actress) was the same address as listed for her under Gladys Valerie in the Motion Picture Directory 1921 (Reference 2 in article). The directory said she was born in Wheeling, West Virginia, and I found the birth record for Gladys Hays in that location. The reason I am sure that the Findagrave entry is correct is that she is buried with her husband and parents, but I suppose that's difficult to reflect in a single source.
I also think she may have exaggerated her former career as an opera singer, but I haven't changed the existing parts of the article that already referred to that. I found that she had been an opera student and had performed as a student, but no evidence of being a professional singer. But I can't prove that she wasn't.
Anyway, it's been great fun researching her. Thanks for your help and advice. NickyNZ (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presidential.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've had this conversation before. I saw you removed the find grave link from the External Link section of William Duane (physicist) per WP:ELPEREN. According to WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL usage is permitted:

"As an external link: Nota bene Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images of a grave."

The William Duane find a grave posting has a valuable image of his grave and that is why it was included. Will you revert? Thanks! Dwkaminski (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dwkaminski , there is already a link in the article that provides an image of his grave; another one provides no additional value. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2023

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Odd license

Hi Nikkimaria, hope you well. I wondered if you could take a brief glance at this. I've not come across the reasoning before, but you see, the photographer (Milton H. Greene) didn't die until 1985. So wouldn't it not be PD for another ~30 years? Thanks! Serial 15:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SN, the deciding factor will be whether the image is from the UK or US production. (The source link is dead so no idea whether it specified). If it's from the US and was published in the 1950s, we don't care about when the photographer died - it would have had to comply with copyright formalities and it didn't, end of. If it's not from the US, though, then life gets a lot more complicated, and you'd probably be right about its status. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Jordan opener

Hi Nikkimaria. Giants2008 and myself have been watching over the Michael Jordan page for several years now. Why don't you open a talk section to discuss how the opener should be phrased? Exxcalibur808 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Exxcalibur808, I appreciate you have been watching over the page, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to repeat the same phrase twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WT:DYK#Jessica Berman

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you would be able to take a look at Jessica Berman. It looks like the article may have the type of close paraphrasing that's harder to find, and it may be in more than the article section already being questioned. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gacy literature

Hi Nikkimaria. Do you think a brief variety of the literature Gacy collected as opposed to just one title would explain to the reader the books which fueled his criminal behavior? The books were not only encouraging murder but also pederasty in addition to somewhat ordinary gay books and magazines (with erotic titles I won't repeat here). If you think the title is somewhat unpalatable then three of the others discovered were 21 Abnormal Sex Cases, Bike Boy and The Rights of Gay People. Thanks. Kieronoldham (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kieronoldham: nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't think we censored. Won't lose any sleep.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose perhaps a devaluing tag may remain on the GA article for months or, potentially, longer? I dearly encourage you to read all the cited books regarding Gacy to understand his unique mindset and how it shaped his life, outlook, yearning, and justification/dismissal of his actions. To think this article has 681 watchers.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kieronoldham, as I noted previously, if someone has to read all the cited books to understand the significance of the details you want to include, they are not helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay. Last thing I wish is for you or anyone to accuse yourself or even myself to be detrimental to Wiki. (MUCH less "attacking an editor" which has never been my case although some edit explanations may seem terse from you or I). What I will say is that you seem, as a few other editors have indicated, to be quite stubborn as to your mindset being the final source of opinion. Wonder how that may resonate on articles you may not patrol (if you do not). Evidently you do on the Gacy article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a matter of "final source of opinion" as it is recognizing that we're serving primarily those without your deep familiarity with the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

. Absolutely not. Tens of thousands of daily watchers and editors are the judges. Let's see if the devaluing tag remains for 24 hours. If not (and if not addressed before) I'll - with your blessing above 681 watchers (with consensus) - remove the tag. No it ain't me and never has been. I do think a more than average knowledge of "cases" of this "kinda" topic may be beneficial for overseeing content, however. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not what? I'm afraid you're not making a lot of sense here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not selectively savvy. :) Genuine thanks. I'm not saying these areas of intrigue are palatable, but thanks--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 12 reviews between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths and funerals of British royalty

I've started a discussion at Category talk:Deaths and funerals of British royalty#Inclusion criteria: Battles, depictions in art etc. and propose (re)adding Battle of Hastings and Battle of Bosworth Field and depictions in art of the execution of Lady Jane Grey etc. Darrelljon (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipsis

Hi. Please make sure to not change square brackets into sheer ellipses in texts that use both, as it can then appear that the original source used them. This was the case in Mitzura Arghezi, where the quoted Romanian and Hungarian sources regularly use ellipses in titles etc. to mark other aspects of tone and phrasing. I believe that this advice is actually dispensed by the MoS itself -- see the "With square brackets" part of MOS:ELLIPSIS. (As much as I dislike some of the nonsense that has crept up in the MoS on various other topics I reverted you on, I note that there are exceptions still provided for each and all of the topics where editors stick to the generic, blind, rule. I felt I should detail my comments on the ellipses and the exception as a particular salient case: not applying the "with brackets" exception here will simply confuse the reader.) Dahn (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For instance: a Romanian source using "[they] were stunned by the occupation army and its behavior..." will use ellipsis to highlight some melancholy or surprise about what is depicted; this is regular use in Romanian, much more than in English. The meaning of the phrase is changed quite radically once we clarify that the ellipsis is ours: "[they] were stunned by the occupation army and its behavior [...]". It becomes a matter-of-fact statement. Dahn (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel the MoS should never have recommended ellipses without brackets for text being removed (it makes it impossible for readers to distinguish the author's intent from our editing of their text), but at least I hope to persuade people not to blindly apply the norm when there is quite obvious grounding for the exception. Dahn (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any unbracketed ellipses in any of the quotes in the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

I applied for WP library access to British Newspaper Archive, apparently you approved it 24 September, and it shows on my library page, with an expiry date Sep 23, 2024. However, if I want to access something, it wants me to sign in, I'm not logged in as a WP-user. Have I missed something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you should have gotten an automatic email - suggest checking your spam filter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing there. And the email I see on the WP-library userpage is correct. I don't have the on-WP "Allow other users to email me" activated, but as I understand it, that doesn't matter here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, could you post a message to your application? You should be able to see it if you go to "View my applications". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Havana

Ok i will source all the section, just wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arequipa belleza (talk • contribs)

Hi @Arequipa belleza:, given that the article is already overlong, I'd suggest doing that in a subarticle. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Ok i will do it but I don't need references to create this article since it doesn't need it, each article of each person has its own references, and besides I haven't got any article List of people from ... any city that has a single reference, however nobody discusses it or deletes it.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arequipa belleza: Yes, you will need references. Links to Wikipedia articles are not substitutes for sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you delete those of london, paris, milan, madrid that don't have a single reference?--Arequipa belleza (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be addressed as well, but their existence does not mean it's okay to have content without references. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liège, Aleppo, Bruges, Brussels, Prague, Jerusalem, ... you have a lot of work to do--Arequipa belleza (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok but I am going to create this article this way backing me in the articles that I make the links, since they did not put it either it is already a lot of work to put references for each person, and there are more than 50 people.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a lot of work, but it doesn't change my answer: sources are required. If you want to you can draft it in your userspace to give you more time to collect your sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no it's not fair, and if you want to raise it in a discussion with other administrators, I'm not going to put it in draft, you're just doing whatever it takes not to publish the article, sorry. You are making just one exception with all the cities and towns added in wikipedia.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we can discuss it with other administrators if you continue.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. As already noted, the fact that other articles do things wrong does not mean that we should do things wrong. If you want to add content, you need to provide sourcing for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok I'll publish it, and I'll move on to discussion.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but don't pass it to me yet to draft, the fact that you assert that you have more rights than others in wikipedia, does not mean that you do everything wrong, and as you wish, without reasoning.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asserted I have more rights than others. All users are bound by our policies, which include WP:BURDEN: those who wish to add content must provide supporting citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying an article that isn't ready for mainspace isn't edit-warring. Once you've added sources for the entries there, you're welcome to request it be moved back to mainspace. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my link?

Hi,

I am wondering why you removed the link I added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Price_equation_examples&oldid=1178853267 The problem with examples page is that it refers to numbered equations which are not in the original proof to which the numbered links lead. This renders the examples page useless. I only grasped the Price equation from the source I gave where examples are part of the main text. How this is fixed I am not sure, but simply reverting my link to the correct source is not much of a solution!

Cheers, Peter Peter2108 (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter2108, this would best be addressed by adding the relevant sourced content to the article. Just saying "this is wrong go here for the better version" isn't all that helpful. Note also that open wikis - whether Fandom or Wikipedia - are not generally considered reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2023



Headlines
  • Argentina report: Disseminating open culture
  • Brazil report: Amazonia on Wiki
  • Colombia report: Wikidata and the editing of Ibero-American scientific journals
  • France report: Celebrating Rugby Herstory and History in Toulouse; Les Lorraines sans pages
  • India report: Wikimedia Commons Contest connects Pune citizens with the rivers Mula & Mutha
  • Italy report: 10,000 institutions on the Wikimedia projects
  • New Zealand report: West Coast Wikipedian at Large
  • Poland report: GLAM-Wiki educational activities
  • Portugal report: With multiple events, September was a busy month for Wikimedia Portugal
  • Sweden report: Wikipedia in education; Continuation at Swedish folk high schools; Wikipedians at the Bookfair
  • UK report: A new WIR and a very old book
  • USA report: Wikimedia New York City Election 2023; San Diego/September 2023; Climate Change and Food Safety
  • Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: OpenRefine and Wikimedia Commons: train the trainer course participants and two surveys
  • Wiki Loves Living Heritage report: European photo contest finalists, Local Contexts Wikiproject at GLAMhack
  • WMF GLAM report: Wikisource Loves Manuscripts, ICOM outreach, Flickr Foundation partnership, OpenRefine adoption, new sources in The Wikipedia Library, Image Description Month events, and the GLAM Wiki Conference
  • Calendar: October's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Edits on Berks Catholic High School

I appreciate the fact you are such a major editor here at Wikipedia. I will make the argument for the info box on Anthony Myers. I’m glad you at least agreed that his part of the article should stay there, but an info box helps clearly display the information of his birth date and death date as well as age of death and type of cancer, both of which would be of would be incredibly relaxant information as to why he got national attention. Also, the inclusion of “take me to practice” was there because it was featured on a lot of the branding for 17 strong.

I understand as a classmate and friend of Anthony I might display some bias (I know bias is a problem, I just edited a ton of pro Tarheel bias out of a college football rivalry article) but I think I am being reasonable here. BigCheddah (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigCheddah, if you think either 17 Strong or Anthony himself would meet our notability standard, I'd encourage you to create a separate article. But either way, the school article shouldn't stand as a substitute for a standalone article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review of galley

Can you take another look at galley? I think I've managed addressed all points.

Bit unsure about the sandwiching because I honestly don't know what properly counts as sandwiching what with the variations between mobile vs desktop and all the variations that come with resolution and choice of UI. If you see anything that's obvious to you, just point it out and I'll get on it. Peter Isotalo 04:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look over the weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review of Easy on Me

Hello, could you possibly provide an image review for my Easy on Me FAC? The article only uses two images but one of my prose reviewers has predicated the outcome of their review upon the passing of the image review by someone experienced.--NØ 14:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's been done already. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Front Bar

Hi I can't seem to figure out why the behind the scenes team is being deleted from The Front Bar. I'm still learning how to do this, but I thought I did it correctly, and there doesn't seem to be a "why we did this" option to figure it out. Supanakbebek (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Supanakbebek, you added a list of external links midway through an article, which isn't where they're supposed to be. Could you explain what you're trying to do? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! It's meant to be a citation, I didn't realise. The option to link to an external site was there, so i just picked it. Will convert it to a footnote, will that resolve it? Thx Supanakbebek (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Supanakbebek, partly - the issue with doing that is IMDb, which is generally not considered to be reliable as a footnote. Do you have an alternative source you can use? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds, thanks :)
Will that be a minor edit or should I not check that box?
Thank you Supanakbebek (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Supanakbebek, the minor edit box should only be used for the most superficial of changes - this wouldn't be that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree: RS or non-RS?

Hi - I notice that you edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophila_Gwatkin to remove a citation fom WikiTree. Can you point me to a discussion here on WP which declares it to be Non-RS. I cannot find one. (I do see one for FindMyPast but the specific complaint there is about user-generated family trees. Not the case with WT.) Verne Equinox (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at RSN several times - see for example this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Barkat

Stop scrubbing Nir Barkat 's page.


He made comments recently on the israel war about wiping out iran. These comments must obviously be included on his wikipedia page. If you keep deleting them, we will keep adding htem back on and then contact CNN. 2600:4040:4752:AB00:64CD:997B:2AED:3CF1 (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. The source provided for the comments was not a reliable one. The comments cannot be included unless there is better sourcing available. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - November 2023

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

James Haskell personal life edit

Nikkimaria You removed an edit on the page for James Haskell's personal life, updating his relationship status with his wife (his marriage was already mentioned in the section). This was widely reported in the press, confirmed by the couple and I included a link to the newspaper report (the highest physical circulation daily newspaper in the UK) quoting the statement by the couple. Why was this removed? 86.15.5.71 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the source that was added is not considered reliable - see WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing death cause from new created article

Hi, why did you remove death cause from article? No one knows how she died. Is that not to be included in the infobox? Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - if it's not known we don't have a defined cause to list. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Aquitania

Hello. I'd like to know why you removed the information I've used from Fandom on the Wikipedia article for RMS Aquitania? I think its necessary to be included since it gives information about the ship's height and there was no information about it before I added it. Ale.ch.geor (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ale.ch.geor, Fandom is not a reliable source because it is user-generated. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~Alright then. I'm new here so I don't know very much. Thanks for letting me know. Ale.ch.geor (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Bailovic

Morning @Nikkimaria: Thanks for updating that wee Rudolf Bailovic article I wrote a lifetime ago. I saw the editor tacking on the "Find a Grave" junk, then changing the whole article. I just wonder if that is the ultimate desination for all these academic and non-academic articles, to have these kinds of junk tacked over time. I spend a lot of time removing this kind of stuff and I know how much hard it is. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 07:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyl Hinwood

Dear @Nikkimaria: You removed information I added about Rhyl Hinwood's parents because its citation was from an unreliable source, Wikitree. In this case, I urge you to reconsider for five reasons:

1. The author of the Wikitree entry I used, Heather Stevens (her real name), has signed Wikitree's honour code, including citing sources. Indeed she does cite her sources. She is passionate about it (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stevens-18395).

2. I checked one of her sources--that for Hinwood's father, at the New South Wales Government's site for births, deaths, and marriages (https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search?2), and got a hit for the father's name. Unfortunately, it would cost me AUD35 to receive a PDF of the father's birth certificate, but I hope you agree that that is hardly necessary.

3. Wikitree does have some measure of peer review. Stevens has received at least four compliments from Wikitree's G2G community, most recently in October 2023 (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stevens-18395).

4. Wikitree does have some measure of editorial control. Stevens has been chosen as a highlighted user from Wikitree's G2G community (https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1286080/meet-our-members-heather-stevens).

5. Although Wikitree is a user generated tree, it is not among the examples listed in WP:UGC. Indeed it has been used for academic, peer-reviewed papers on research.

The only claim one could make is that Stevens's entry does not mention Rhyl Hinwood. But this is consistent with Wikitree's honour code not to publish information about living people.

I have no doubts about the entry's veracity. I urge you to reinstate it. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you feel the entry is accurate, but that doesn't make it reliable under our policies. Ultimately a lot of what you're describing here could equally apply to Wikipedia articles written by well-regarded editors - those would be equally inappropriate as references. Additionally the content at issue is not generally included, so you need not purchase the PDF; it can simply be omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoolan Devi

Hi Nikkimaria, could you take another look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phoolan Devi/archive1. I think the image review is done and the source review prob needs more discussion on ToI. Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley Parents' Birth Dates and Death

You've cited MOS:BIRTHDATE as the reason for undoing my edits, but I don't see where MOS: BIRTHDATE supports the decision you've made. Please explain. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's centralize this discussion on the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2023



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Your incompetent so is your fellow editor

lovely post. Wondering if we are at the point were the community is better off with some sort of restrictions here Moxy- 01:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's worthwhile you're welcome to try. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the main problem...they are a Wikipedia:TIMESINK ....is it worth the effort for the few articles they own. Moxy- 01:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington National Cemetery

I posted a comment on the ANC article talk page. I think WP guidelines need clarification. E.g., does WP:ELPEREN apply to FAG cemeteries listed as a whole, or does WLP:ELPEREN apply simply to the individual gravesite listings on FAG. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question you posted on the ANC talk page does not help. You did not answer using WP guidance, but "demanded" an answer that says "justify to me the listing in the infobox and I will personally decide if your answer is good enough for me." You only have one vote on judging whether a FAG infobox entry is justified. And you are outnumbered on this question. One vote goes to the the editor(s) who added the infobox parameter and other votes go to the editors who add data to the infoboxes in various articles. – S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That question is relevant per WP guidance: if an external link is to be included, it needs to be justified. See WP:ELBURDEN. And it's not a vote. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion about FindaGrave cemetery and interment listings is underway at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten

Hello Nikkimaria, Just wanted to give you a heads up, I did a pretty significant rewrite and expansion of Begotten for sourcing and writing issues that were noted in its previous FA nominations. Removed a lot of problematic sources and completely redid the citation style to make it more legible. I am hoping it clears up the bulk of the issues that caused the nominations to fail previously and its current FA nomination to pass. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

The Portgual page is too long and too cluttered. Considering you're an expert on this, something needs to be done there. 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:D45D:AEF4:E222:51BC (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

graph deleted at Castilla–La Mancha

In your edition of 00:24, 11 October 2023‎, you deleted from the page Castilla–La Mancha a graph about the region's economy (Castilla-La Mancha Product Exports (2020).svg), with just the comment detree. Could you explain why? Jotamar (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jotamar, those graphs present multiple problems with regards to MOS:ACCESS. Specifically:
  • It includes text below 85% of default size (MOS:SMALL)
  • It uses colour to communicate important information, and has insufficient contrast between text and background colour (MOS:COLOUR)
  • It uses an image in the place of a properly formatted chart (MOS:ACCIM) or text (MOS:TEXTASIMAGES)
On top of all that, because they were designed to be interactive, the static versions just aren't very usable - you can't click on sections to see what they're supposed to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in spite of all those problems, the graph can still be useful for some readers, since apparently its accuracy is not questioned. However, this is a field I'm not especially involved in, so I'll just let it be. --Jotamar (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You were mentioned in this discussion back in August, but not pinged; if you were notified here on your talk, that is lost in the volume :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mm hmm. Thanks for the note. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my first FAC?

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm reaching out because of your expertise with city articles, as I'm working on preparing my first FA nomination: Fez, Morocco. The article is currently undergoing a final peer review before I nominate it, and I would love any feedback or assistance that you could provide. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Webb

hi Nikkimaria ,

it appears you have deleted the factual and reliable information that me and 3 other students have added to the page of Josephine Webb. everything added to the page was been extensively researched and is factually correct. i would be very apreative if you didn't do this again as this is a college assignment that heavily impacts our grade and by deleting the work we have spent weeks researching and putting together will result in us failing our assignment and putting our college placement in jeopardy.

kind regards Christopherbuckley2 (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopherbuckley2 - please take a look at your talk page. Shearonink (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Macy's Parade

Hey Nikkimaria, I've noticed you've deleted the entire marching bands section in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade article. All of the info in the section is factually correct and has been worked on by many people. If I could get a better explanation on why you are deleting it that would be much appreciated. Nontedious (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nontedious, as indicated in my edit summary, the section was poorly sourced - most of it to wikis - and excessive for an encyclopedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

I'm thinking of sending William Y. Slack to FAC but am worried that there may be MOS:ACCESS issues with File:Missouri State Guard divisions map (cropped).jpg. I think it's useful to include this map to show the various departments, but I don't know how best to include this information without creating accessibility issues. (the existing map was produced in Microsoft paint). Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've got each section numbered, the easiest solution would be to make the borders between them slightly more defined - then your legend can refer to numbers as well as colours. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 59

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

  • Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
  • Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2023

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content merely because it is associated with a deprecated source

If a source is impermissible, but the information associated with it is noncontroversial, such as the burial location of an article subject, please do not remove the information. Just remove the source and add a {{citation needed}} tag for the information, so that a proper source can be found. If the information is controversial, such as an assertion of criminal activity, please move that content to the talk page for discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is controversial and unsourced, it should typically be removed, not moved to talk. If uncontroversial, it may be removed or retained. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is technically permissible at the outer ambit of editing authority is not necessarily wise. It is always better to tag uncontroversial content as needing a citation before deleting it for lack thereof (which is why the {{citation needed}} tag exists). It is not constructive to the encyclopedia or helpful to the reader to remove likely verifiable content due to initial poor sourcing (which is not quite the same as absence of sourcing). Doing so merely increases the likelihood that correct information will be permanently lost to the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 15:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We will need to agree to disagree on what is "always" better, I'm afraid. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is, to a degree, a philosophical discussion. However, it is objectively true that removing content due to poor sourcing without at least giving notice that better sourcing is needed will result in some amount of potentially useful and sourceable information being permanently lost to the project. BD2412 T 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BD2412 on this. There's lots of information about notable but sparsely covered subjects (sparsely, i.e., on easily available sources). Lots of such uncontroversial and true information appears on our less actively edited pages without in-line citations. The content you removed and that we recently discussed on Daniel Blumenthal (pianist) is an example. I appreciated your removal of unduly promotional wording and puffery, but the information was OK and is almost surely published in various non-google-prominent RS. Some day, somebody can perfect the source references, but not if the information is erased. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That content wasn't removed for any reason relating to sourcing quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon reasonable scrutiny, it wasn't removed for any reason at all - just your dubious surmise. I do appreciate your response on the article talk page, however. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we'll need to agree to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article length

Hi @Nikkimaria, thanks for all your work on article lengths. I have thought reducing the guideline down from 15,000 to 10,000, would improve the pedia, but I'm open to evidence. Too simplistic? Do you think it's just better to encourage everyone to stick to the current guideline. If it's worth reducing the guideline, have you advice on how to do that. I've been compiling an evidence base on the talk page for article size, naive? What do you think I should be prioritising my energies to maximise WP? How's your editing going? Happy editing! Tom B (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom B, I think the kB issue if that can get sorted would be a good win, and a low-hanging fruit for improvement - here's an example in practice of someone getting confused about that. More significant changes are going to be a harder slog, so up to you whether you want to devote the necessary energy. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for encouragement on the kb. Vietnam: where can 140kb have come from? do you think readers would be better off if articles were generally kept to 10,000 words pls? Tom B (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on the 140. Better off, generally yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand your removal of find a grave on Alfred L. Elwyn. My understanding of the latest guidance on WP:ELPEREN is that find a grave can be used if an image is available that is not available on wikipedia. I added the EL to Alfed L. Elwyn since there is an image of his grave. Thanks! Dwkaminski (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dwkaminski , it specifies images that are not only unique but also valuable - not seeing that here. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information regarding The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth and G Fuel

Hello, I would like you to elaborate your reason to "trim" information from the G Fuel page regarding its partnership with the 2014 roguelite game The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth. The edit reason did not come off as constructive to me. Both the energy drink and the game are notable items, and the removed information has sourced proof of the partnership. The sources attached to the removed information were the only ones I could find. The edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G_Fuel&diff=prev&oldid=1188229862

Thank you for reading. CarlFilip19 (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CarlFilip19, the sources provided are largely user-generated/self-published - these types of sources are not generally considered reliable. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. CarlFilip19 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W.B. Yeats

Unpolitical - nonpolitical - silly me I missed that it was a direct quote; kudos for your attentive eye MarkDask 04:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitters

I have evidences on Twitter which I lost in 2021. See which one is worth it in your point of view? ChristopherAraujo1989, talk 21:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a social media screenshot on a wiki site is a strong source, and I don't think the claim is significant enough to justify including it despite that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2023



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

article length

Hello.

It is kind crazy that my exploits on Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic forced you to put the "too long" templates into every page about individuals that is over 400 thousand bytes (sept Trump for obvious reasons).

Anyways, I am here to warn you that you overlooked Mary Hanford Ford (445B), and also that you misread Roger Federer since he is actually quite far from the 400B (currently at 362B).

Kind Regards. Barr Theo (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barr Theo, I think you're looking at the wrong numbers. SIZERULE refers to readable prose size rather than wikitext bytes. By that metric Ford is under 13k words and Federer is over 17k. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. This is very interesting.
By the way, what is the limit? 15k right?
Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barr Theo, I'd suggest looking at the table at SIZERULE - it outlines a few different levels and how to approach them. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific War

Hello

I noticed you deleted my section on Attitudes to the enemy on the Pacific War page. I was wondering if you could give me more clarification as to why you removed this as on the talk page the idea of this section was accepted. Please could you let me know how I can improve the article.

All the best Goldenl03 (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Golden, as I mentioned this seems like overdetail for this page - there is a lot of background that went into the events but those details are best explored elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY HOLIDAYS 2023

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and
- especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 16:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)) Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs a comma

Hi,

You removed the comma in this sentence: 

 The trip is unlikely, given William's absorption in warfare with Anjou at the time.
 [revision]

The sentence contains two verbs. Without the comma, those verbs parse as a single verb construct, which is not the intended meaning.

Here is an example of a similar sentence, where the comma's absence aligns with the intended meaning: 

 The trip is likely given too much importance by historians.

Please reconsider your change.


— Black Walnut talk 14:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your interpretation, but you're welcome to post to the article's talk page to see if others do. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2024

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


Online events:

Announcement

  • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
    of the #1day1woman initiative!

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mutsuko Soma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Art Institute of Seattle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Italy

Hi, do you have time in the next few days to fix the article Cinema of Italy in order to remove the tags at the beginning of the article? If you don't have time, I could turn to the user who usually helps me with my work on English Wikipedia. Regards. --LukeWiller (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Not in the next few days, unfortunately - that's going to take considerable work. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers to you as well! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hello Nikkimaria:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of Jackie Robinson as a student of Arnold Schoenberg

I don't think this edit deserved reverting. It shows that Robinson was a more well-rounded individual at UCLA than a discussion of only his athletic career there would indicate. Isn't that worth noting, that Robinson had more on his mind at UCLA than participation in sports? Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry Koenigsberg, being in a particular course doesn't necessarily indicate what he had on his mind. Do any of Robinson's biographers comment on this class? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears in a biography of Arnold Schoenberg, per the citation. I think it worthwhile to indicate that Robinson had intellectual interests during his undergraduate years at UCLA. This fact does not appear elsewhere in the article; leaving it in promotes the multi-dimensionality of his biography there.
I will see if I can find anything about this in a Robinson biography. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A trawl through Google Books biographies of Robinson yields no trace of his taking Schoenberg's class. But perhaps of interest, if essentially unrelated: memorials to them meet up in a musical work, dedicated to Robinson's memory, performed in UCLA's Schoenberg Hall. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Soylent wiki page back, with the reason being "needs reliable secondary sourcing"

Hi, I was wondering if you could elaborate on what you meant when you said that my page edit needed a reliable secondary sourcing. I gave sources to the original creators of the pop culture references listed in my edit, so I don't see the need for a secondary source? RealRetronaut (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RealRetronaut, I'd suggest having a look at this guidance on pop-culture references; generally speaking we need sourcing that indicates not only that the references exist (which is what primary sources do), but that they are significant to the topic (which needs secondary sourcing). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm EmilySarah99. I noticed that you recently removed content from Anne, Queen of Great Britain without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Caption and links are appropiate. EmilySarah99 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon Hi Nikkimaria! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Eenoolooapik‎ several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Eenoolooapik, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Generalissima (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, as a reminder, WP:CITEVAR requires those wishing to change the existing established style to get consensus for it first. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Daniel Parke Custis...

I was wondering why you deleted the John Wollaston caption in this edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink, see the explanation at MOS:CREDITS. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions

Hello there! I do understand your wanting of a smaller caption. MOS:CREDITS says it is acceptable to link the artist in the caption. So I’m just curious as to why you have an issue with this? A lot of portrait artists aren’t very well known, linking them to their portraits that are used in articles helps make them more known, it allows people to be able to read more about the artist and see more of their work. I especially appreciate when the artist is linked in the caption as I am an avid lover of portrait art. I don’t really see a very good reason to remove them. Most lead images have the artist linked in the caption, seems odd to me to cherry pick a few articles and remove them when most articles have them. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 02:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Robertus Pius, if you read further, it indicates that "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable". It hasn't been my experience that most articles have them, though of course there are some pending cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most royalty and nobility articles have them. I just think the “Portrait, c. 1600” caption looks extremely odd. I don’t see how removing the artist in the caption improves the article, I think it does quite the opposite. Regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 04:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you believe that - looks quite fine to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps the article talk pages would be best to discuss this. It should be reverted to the original captions (with the artist linked) as they have been for some time and you can make your case in the talk page for removing the artists from the captions. Regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 05:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there's a case to be made to not follow the MOS, you're welcome to make it at article talk - but until that case has been made, they should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re the one changing something that’s been consistent in the articles for years. If an editor disagrees with your change then you should see if editors agree with you in the talk page and get consensus to make the change. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 05:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, it should be reverted to the original caption before you made the change. If other editors agree with you then so be it. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 05:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS is a sitewide style guide, and is the default - it would be up to those wanting to deviate to make a case for that. It actually sounds like you're disagreeing with the guide in general rather than in any specific case, so perhaps bring that up at MOS talk? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a style guide, does not mean we have to follow it blindly. Seems odd to just cherry pick a few articles when most royalty and nobility articles have them, removing it doesn’t improve the article whatsoever. Just because what you’re changing follows MOS (according to your opinion) doesn’t mean you don’t need consensus if another user disagrees with your opinion. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 15:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not cherry picking - there are many articles in need of improvement, and if we used that as a reason not to improve nothing would ever get done. Is there a specific article that you feel should be discussed? Your objections, as noted above, seem much more general. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the articles I’m speaking of are the royalty and nobility articles you recently changed. Charles X, Louis XVIII, Francis II, and Charles IX. Those are the ones I recall off the top of my head, though I’m not sure if you’ve changed more articles relating to royalty and nobility. And I’m not disagreeing with the guide as a whole, I’m disagreeing with your removal of something that I don’t think should be removed. I’ve explained above as to why I think the artist should be linked. You haven’t really given a very good reason why you’re removing them besides saying you’re following MOS. What is the reasoning why you believe artists shouldn’t be linked? Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 15:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reasoning at MOS that this detail is not key to the article subject, so reverted your additions. I also disagree with your assertion that there is anything special about royalty/nobility articles which would mean as a class this is something that should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the image caption is to give a key fact about the image, the maker of the portrait is a key fact. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 16:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the purpose of the caption is to establish the image's relevance to the article and to be succinct, per MOS:CAPTION. Additionally the purpose of the template in which these particular captions appear is to summarize key facts about the article subject, and "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" - again supporting exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wholeheartedly disagree with the removal of the artists from captions (reason stated above). I think the captions you've put aren’t constructive to the articles, but, you obviously disagree. Also, as I’ve stated in the past, the Napoleon infobox really needs improvement, I’ve never seen an infobox in such a way, it goes against almost every infobox I’ve seen. Other editors have expressed wanting to change it was well (adding the parents and issue) but have been either ignored or have been shut down, eventually it seems they give up. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I’m confusing you with a different editor I spoke with in the Napoleon talk page, you can ignore my comments regarding Napoleons infobox. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 17:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2023



Headlines
  • Albania report: Wiki Loves EuroPride in Albania 2023
  • Bosnia & Herzegovina report: A year in review ...
  • Croatia report: 2023 in review
  • Czech Republic report: Wiki-residents establishing meeting took place in December
  • Germany report: Go-ahead for Wikidata Project of GLAM institutions from Baden-Württemberg
  • Italy report: WLM Local winners and funds for 2024 GLAM projects
  • New Zealand report: Auckland Museum summer updates
  • Poland report: Intense end to a year of GLAM-Wiki activities in Poland
  • Sweden report: Photo memories project concludes; Sörmlands museum passes 1000 uploads to Wikimedia Commons; Wikimedian in Residence supports an upload of music content; Subject terms from Queerlit; Wikidata for authority control: 3 years of work
  • Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Program
  • UK report: 2023 in Review
  • USA report: WikiConference North America 2023; TSU and USF; Philadelphia WikiSalon; Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting; Wikipedia Editing 101 for All; NYC Hacking Night; Upstate NY workshop; Wikiquote She Said Project
  • Wiki Loves Living Heritage report: Thank you for making Wiki Loves Living Heritage happen!
  • WMF GLAM report: Updates and invitation to test the Commons Impact Metrics prototype
  • Calendar: January's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Britten



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

I noticed your revert of an infobox for BB, citing "(see note)". I wonder what a possibly new user - never saw the name before - may get from that. I tried to find out, and saw a hidden notice in the code: "Before adding an infobox, please read Talk:Benjamin Britten/Archive 1#Infobox." How would we know if the user read, and no more than reading seems required? The comment there (from 2007) questions the use of an infobox for a popular musician, not of any infobox. That was helped by the new infobox, which followed a request for an infobox on the talk. I see no reason for you to revert. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the response to you in the PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. I believe the "note" that you quoted in the edit summary was no reason to revert, and the editor who added an infobox following a request for it on the talk (doing that systematically as I saw in their contributions) deserved a better explanation if there was a different reason to revert. Many things happened since that PR, and more since the note, including Project Opera dropping the recommendation of "better no infobox in biographies" from the guidelines, and Britten is certainly a prolific opera composer, and a pianist, and a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion at the PR, I don't agree the systematic approach was appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user simply follows the request template, today: The River Café (London), John Reynolds (musician), Isabel Hornibrook, Grace-St. Luke's Episcopal School. Their other edits also look sensible, - just checking the last 25. How are they supposed to know that anything is different for Britten if you don't give them more clue than reference to a 2007 comment not to use infobox musical artist? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best clue is to not have the request template, so now that it's gone that shouldn't be an issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never added one, but I understand those who do, and those who follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you pointed the user who made an edit in good faith thinking that they improved Wikipedia, to the guidelines of project composers which has no date but is clearly based on a 2010 RfC. As explained above, project opera changed its (formerly similar) guidelines, in 2019. Project opera is just as relevant for Benjamin Britten. Mozart and Vivaldi have shown where the community stands. What do think of leaving the reverting to others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to ping you when I pointed former arb Wugapodes at this conversation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please go back and re-insert the artist's who painted the lead images that you have removed? I don't mean the photography studio's, just the painters. Crediting artist's works seem an important part of Wikipedia credibility and important to the topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy Kryn, they should be omitted - see the explanation at MOS:CREDITS. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone interested in art and artworks I will disagree on this, and say that credit should be given artists for their work in lead images. The MOS point you link to doesn't say not to do it, just that it is discouraged (something I don't understand). For example, I came here after you removed Gilbert Stuart's name and link from the Abigail Adams page. I would ask that you revert the edits which removed artist's names and let's discuss this at a talk page with more editors from both MOS projects and the Visual arts wikirpoject, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an issue relevant to the visual arts project - we're talking about articles on subjects outside that realm. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of artwork images anywhere on Wikipedia is squarely in the realm of WikiProject Visual Arts, which is the directed applied MOS relevant to this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, repeated from the ongoing discussion: According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures the guiding MOS direction for captions of works of art would be the section "Using works of art", with the relevant section being Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions which states that the artist of an artwork should be named in the caption of that artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is no more accurate or convincing upon repetition. Suggest we wait for others weigh in at the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a citation, which is a repeat from the discussion. Can't be any more accurate, the accuracy is apparent and direct. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will need to agree to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For page observers interested in this topic there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Abigail Adams#Caption, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific War Revision

Hi there, I noticed you have removed my addition to the Pacific War page, could you give me some further clarification for this action and perhaps display where this has already been mentioned within the page? Additionally, any further guidance around the topic would be useful. Thank you for your time! T224murray (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T224murray, your addition overlapped with content already in the War crimes section - I'd suggest adding details to the War crimes in World War II article. Best, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I feel like one sentence aiding to the Japanese introduction of Comfort Women can't really be called overlapping with previous content. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove that one sentence as it is now covered in more depth? Additionally, adding these details to the War crimes in World War II page would also be inaccurate because, as stated in my addition, these are strongly backed accusations and testimonies which allege the US committing these crimes. There is considerable evidence to prove so, but it would surely be spreading misinformation if I were to add them to a section based on war crimes that countries have been found guilty of. Thanks, T224murray (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Is there a particular reason you've removed the birth and death place details for Mozart from his infobox? I note that you've been adding in the exact same details for Americans, yet don't seem to apply this to Europeans. City, State, polity of birth are pretty consistent across wikipedia and in your other edits. Why remove? Ecrm87 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecrm87, as the note indicates, proposed changes should be discussed on talk - there has been disagreement about what should be listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry about that, I didn't see a note and then realised it was under the infobox. Notes should really be at the top of a section so people see these things more easily. Ecrm87 (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria&oldid=1196798850"