User talk:Elucidata

Welcome[edit]

Hello Elucidata, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Elucidata, good luck, and have fun. – Schwede 66 01:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming[edit]

A significant proportion of your edits in article space (i.e. to articles rather than talk pages) appear to include URLs to a particular website and only that website. This is open to interpretation as spam. You may wish to read WP:SPAMMER. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat my warning above, and additionally point out that as a tertiary source, wikipedia is based on secondary sources; archival sources are normally primary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The external links are to a library collection that backs up the articles, and they're relevant and useful, so it hardly seems like self-promotion or spamming. But I agree that there's too much use of the journals and letters as primary sources, and I've been emailing with Elucidata about what best practice might be, and how these archives could be used in a way that fits Wikipedia better. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you both. Elucidata (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little test case Stuartyeates (talk) and Giantflightlessbirds (talk). The journal entry re vineyards in NZ, written by SM, has been widely analysed/quoted. E.g. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/first-grape-vines-planted-in-new-zealand-at-kerikeri. I would like to add this to the Samuel Marsden page, & leave the journal entry one there also. Is that permissible?

So exactly what text are you planning to add to the Samuel Marsden article? I'm not clear on what value deep linking to the primary source is when (as you point out) secondary sources more than cover the ground and there's a link to the archive at the bottom of the page anyway. Or are you talking about uploading the page image to commons and having the image in the article? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been thinking about uploading the page image to commons. Is that a suitable approach to show this primary source?Elucidata (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images to commons and then getting the uploading institution reflected glory via the image credits is an established technique. When I was growing up I used to think that the Alexander Turnbull Library was a photo library, because I only ever saw the name in image credits in print books; digital works pretty much the same. Note that the same image (and credits) might be used in several places (think Kerikeri, New Zealand wine, etc), but the more images already in the article the lower the chances that a new image is going to be suitable due to the need to balance images and text. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that we are not confusing a new and thus as yet inexperienced user, before you can upload an image to Commons, it must have a suitable licence that permits, amongst other things, commercial use. Are we talking about an image with a suitable license here? Schwede 66 23:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so - http://marsdenarchive.otago.ac.nz/terms Elucidata (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are out of luck. Their licence is 'CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 NZ' and the NC stands for non-commercial; that is not permissible on Commons. Schwede 66 01:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Good timing in relation to my project meeting at 2pm. Elucidata (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hocken should seriously consider talking to CCNZ http://creativecommons.org.nz/contact/ about that. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Stuart. I gather the Hocken has applied some thinking to this issue in relation to the Marsden Archive/Wikimedia Commons. But I haven't had the chance to talk with the correct person about this yet. So yes, we may well seek advice from CCNZ Elucidata (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a read of the general rules yourself before you meet with that person. Schwede 66 03:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this end to a previous NZ institution who tried to use WP for self promotion informative. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose of the operation is to get more traffic to your sights, I suggest you get in touch with Fiona Fieldsend <Fiona.Fieldsend@dia.govt.nz> at DigitalNZ about commercial licensing for your metadata. You're already in there and commercial licensing of your data will allow people like PRIMO to send lots more visitors your way Stuartyeates (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Stuart. the "getting more traffic" is a side-effect of the purpose, which is "to increase knowledge of and access [for Wikipedia users] to" information about the collections. The project's assumption is that Wikipedia (and its users) will benefit from information about the collections being included in articles. In general, the focus on Wikipedia at present is probably the first phase of such work, and more discussions with DigitalNZ will follow, I'm sure.

Thanks for re-confirming that your work here remains fundamentally promotional in nature. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In talking with User:Elucidata, I don't think this project is self-promotion. She's been asked to use the institution's public resources to improve Wikipedia, and is keen to get it right. I've suggested she focus more on improving articles using secondary sources and expertise on-hand, and pursue releasing images to the commons under a less-restrictive license. Perhaps we could point to other Wikipedian in Residence programmes for guidance on how a host institution's web-based resources and archives are generally used. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a 'Wikipedian in Residence' User:Elucidata? I'd not heard that before, I think. Wikipedian in residence clearly implies that the editors' association with wikipedia pre-dates their residence; is that the case here? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuartyeates the flyer about the project I sent a little while ago was headed Wikipedian Project. The body of the text didn't use that word. One key aspect of this project is that we are aiming to understand what such a role (a Wikipedian in Residence) consists of and how it might be/would be incorporated into the work of the institutions here. And no, I as an "editor" have no prior association with wikipedia, other than anonymously and infrequently. Elucidata (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elucidata, have you asked any Wikipedians in residence what the role involves? People like User:Missvain, User:Robertforsythe, User:Gastronaut, User:Midnightdreary or User:Johnbod? I've not asked them myself, but a pint of beer says they'll say spamming links to the institution in references isn't a large part of it. (For the record, although I have a day job the the GLAM sector and edit wikipedia, these are entirely separate; I apologise if anything I or anyone else has said has implied that I am or have been a Wikipedian in residence.) Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know all the background on the situation, but, as a former Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution and Library of Congress, I believe it is totally *ok* to add links to an institutional website if it falls under two areas: 1) It is a webpage or source that improves the Wikipedia article and thus it is used as a reference/footnote or 2) It is a webpage or source that maybe does not need to be used as a citation, but, can help improve the reader's interest in a subject matter and it can be used as an external link. Note, in both of these circumstances it must be a link that adds value and isn't generic - it is about or related to the subject being covered in the Wikipedia article. Every GLAM that participates in a Wikipedia partnership is going to love the fact that they get more hits on their website - that is just common sense. There is nothing wrong with even admitting that, but, the first and foremost mission of any institution is to share the sum of knowledge in and about their collections and by sharing information on Wikipedia is a part of that. I do suggest connecting with a Wikipedian or experience GLAM-Wiki volunteer in your community. You probably could have avoided attracting the drama llama if you would have connected with the community in that sense, prior. Hope things improve! Missvain (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comments Missvain. Elucidata (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Māui (early Christian convert in New Zealand) has been accepted[edit]

Māui (early Christian convert in New Zealand), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi I've added a reference to an image/information in an online exhibition. I'm unsure about what elements should go in which fields of the Cite:Web form. Partly its tricky because of not being able to copy links which show both image and related text. The edit is on the Tapa cloth page, re. Captain Cook being an early collector of tapa cloth.

I've fixed up the reference step-by-step for you; please review the edit summaries (start here). The underlying problem is that you are trying to do too much with one citation; if you want to refer to the website, as well as a specific figure on that website, simply use two separate citations. One is now there, and you could add Template:Cite AV media to create a second one that links directly to the photo. Schwede 66 03:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Now you say about doing too much with one citation, it makes much more sense. The only thing is this Template:Cite AV media doesn't really seem to fit a still image. Is there an alternative one to use for that? (I had a look but couldn't see one. Elucidata (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list of CS1 citations, of which Template:Cite AV media is a member, can be found at Citation Style 1. I would recommend Cite web myself if another category from the list isn't more applicable. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Elucidata (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Hello again Schwede 66 I have finally got round to adding in the link to the image of tapa cloth. As a footnote it's operating correctly. I'm not so confident of the way I've described it. The author is the person who donated the collection which included the tapa cloth samples. Also, I didn't know how (if at all) to show in the citation the context of the image within the online exhibition. Your advice gratefully received, thank you. Elucidata (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

I can't find the place in Edit? View history? or somewhere else, which tells me what "rating" an article has. Or a summary of what the ratings are. Pretty sure I saw it another time, but no luck today re-locating it. Thank you!

Elucidata (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects are groups of editors who have formed a project in a specific project area like article on, say, lakes or articles on physics. Some of these Wikiprojects participate in a rating system which they place on an article talk page when they add their "project tag" to it with a letter grade assessment. Largely informal, haphazardly applied by solo users (and not in-often, even by article creators, despite the conflict of interest), and mostly defunct because they were originally an outgrowth of a project to tag articles for an offline versions of Wikipedia which is dead. In short, they are mostly meaningless and vast numbers of articles do not have any assessment. What actually matters is whether an article has achieved either good article status or featured article status through a peer review process. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it's on the article talk page.-gadfium 06:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it's not on the article talk page much of the time but one shouldn't care.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Fuhghettaboutit & gadfium :) Elucidata (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Clark (businessman) (January 22)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tom Clark (businessman) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Elucidata, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk Thanks for the message. I realised it was light, but wanted to get the process going. I'll do some further revisions/additions as soon as possible.Elucidata (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for applications for position of Wikipedian-at-Large, Aotearoa New Zealand[edit]

Kia ora! The Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.

Sent by Zippybonzo on behalf of MurielMary using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay[edit]

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede 66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]