User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 47
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
DYK for Serlo (abbot of Cirencester)
 | On 12 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Serlo (abbot of Cirencester), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sired sired Serlo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serlo (abbot of Cirencester). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Harrias talk 08:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Newspapers.com check-in
Hello Ealdgyth,
You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
- Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
- Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you,
Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Pantulf
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Pantulf you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of William Pantulf
The article William Pantulf you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Pantulf for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Request for clarification for reverting my edits at Anselm of Canterbury
You reverted my edits in Anselm of Canterbury. How is makes things more confusing for beginning editors a valid reason? (WP:ONLYREVERT / WP:REVEXP). Also isn't just a c. is confusing for non-native English speaker. Template adds a tool tip which explains what it is. Not to mention tooltip would would be really helpful for disabled people using screen reader software. --Jayarathina (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Templates don't help with screen readers though, and tooltips don't help folks who are accessing with a mobile device or with older computer systems. There is no need for a template with it's confusing markup for a simple word. Simplicity is a perfectly valid reason. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Templates do help screen readers. If you see the generated mark up, it adds an abbr tag. Accessibility software do read that tag.[1] so does accessibility software on mobile devices. Accessibility is just one of the benefits, there are many other benefits to use proper markup tag on a page.[2] Our end user is not an editor, but the reader (the one who reads the wiki to get information). It is him that we should tailor our page. Also simplicity is NOT a valid reason. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy to revert good faith edits just to make the markup clean. --Jayarathina (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- You could have at least waited until this discussion is over and explain your rational before making more similar changes. --Jayarathina (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I made the changes to address the issue you brought up - you said that the abbreviation was hard for people to understand so I changed it to the proper word. I removed the death/age template because it was used improperly - it was giving an exact age at death which is wrong when we only know an approximate date of birth. I hadn't noticed that someone had put that in, so when I noticed it, I took it out. The popups do NOT help people on mobile devices and it's always better to avoid too much markup. Now, if someone doesn't understand the word, they can click on it to go to the article on it and there are no abbreviations which folks might not understand. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was not talking about death date at all. I was talking only about the circa changes. Tool tips are not pop ups. There is not going to be a popup anywhere. The HTML code is readable by accessibility software, even if it is not visible on old browsers, programs like JAWS can read it. When MOS and Accessibility guidelines state that proper tags should be used giving circa as an explicit example why shouldn't we use it? Also abbreviation exists for a reason. "c." is directly recommended in the manual of style. (If you want to link to the article the template has an lk parameter for that. Moreover this template is neither complex nor hard to understand. Even basic user should be able to use it.) Just that you know, this is not about this single article, there are more than 7000 articles using this template, are you planning to revert it in all of those pages? --Jayarathina (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not planning on mass removing it, but I don't see a need for it. Are you planning on mass-adding it? It's not required, it's not needed, and your points about needing to explain it have been dealt with. Simpler markup is better. It falls purely into a "I like it/I don't like it" kinda thing - so it's use or not use should be decided on a case by case basis. And whether or not it's called a tooltip or a popup, doesn't change the fact that it does not work on mobile/tablet devices (as I just double checked for myself). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not going to mass edit it. Just that you know, reverting constructive edits without a valid reason and only because "I don't like it" and is really discouraging. ---Jayarathina (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Even SuggestBot thinks you should take a shot at editing Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, and so do I. Balanced articles require multiple viewpoints. I appreciate your thoughtful insights.68.32.154.213 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar for You!
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| For your contributions to bring William Pantulf to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! — ₳aron 13:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of William Pantulf
The article William Pantulf you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:William Pantulf for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ac
Teach me, please. I understand that authority control is now on wikidata, as interwiki links. To have both central makes a lot of sense to me, for normal cases. If it is safer to have data here, as you say, why only VIAF and not all the other numbers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't trust wikidata with anything. There is no actual concept of providing sources for any information. When I attempted to correct mistakes on wikidata, I was reverted because information from wikipedias that did not have any sources was just as reliable as the information from english wikipedia with sources and removing wrong information that was on some wikipedia without sources was a bad idea according to wikidata. Importing data from wikidata when that's the concept of sourcing they have is just plain a bad idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- See Wilfrid's history on wikidata and my talk page on Wikidata. It's not worth my time, and I'm not in favor of removing information here because it's hosted on wikidata - where they don't seem to get the concept of what's correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but then don't see why you want only the VIAF here while the complete set is
WorldCat VIAF: 298402404 LCCN: n84070070 ISNI: 0000 0000 6629 6685 GND: 118807293 SELIBR: 210359 BPN: 31341651
- I did not add the stupid AC template. I had nothing to do with the content of it. I did check that it was going to the correct thing before reverting it, but really, this is worth bothering with? If it's going to be there, I saw no reason to not have whatever you removed restored. At this point, considering the pain in the ass bother of the replies and everything, I"m tempted to totally remove it (because originally AC was going to be just for "writers" and now it's morphed into something huge that does all sorts of things that really aren't that important for the mission of wikipedia .. which is writing content. Not to be testy or anything but ... I have limited wiki time any more. The more time I spend dealing with wikidata and other crap rather than working on articles.. please don't reply back. If you feel it must be reverted, revert. But let me get back to worrying about article content and what's important to our readers (which is accuracy of information, right? Wikidata hasn't shown me that it's concerned with accuracy, thus I'm opposed to removing information because it's coming through wikidata.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. I don't revert, period ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
TWL Questia check-in
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
- When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The Herald (submissions) during the second round.The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was 
Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
TWL Questia check-in
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
- When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)