User talk:MB/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Your fix

Hello, Thanks for improving the open encyclopedia article, but this edit went wrong. Could you fix it, as you intended your edit? --Avoinlähde (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Avoinlähde, I made one further change but don't know what you intended when you added these. You seemed to try to add two named references, but they were not used in the article, thus causing the reference errors seen here (after a bot fixed another error with the ref names). I have converted them to unnamed general references, and they appear now after the numbered refs. If you want them to be used as refs in the article, you need to add ref tags. If you want them to be in a "External links" or "Further reading" or "Additional sources" section, you need to add a header. I can't do more myself. MB 14:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Central School (Peoria, Arizona)

Hi! Doncram asked that the AfC reviewer let you know when this article was created -- I've just accepted it. Rusalkii (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Paul Lee (environmentalist)

Hello!

Thank you for your infobox edit. I see you returned Harvard Divinity, MIT, and UCSC to Paul Lee's infobox... I am wondering if I made a mistake then in changing Lee's "short description" to American philosopher, whereas a previous editor set him as American professor? He holds his PhD in Philosophy from Harvard Divinity School and taught at MIT for three years post-doc and UCSC for seven years on tenure track before he was denied tenure... I made the change to him as Philosopher because that seemed more apt to grab the parts of his bio that were prior to his professorship, where he gained some repute as a TA to Tillich in the psychedelic review events at that took place at Harvard, and then after he is denied tenure by UCSC, his nonprofit activism in environmental policy and homelessness advocacy for the rest of his career, as well as now his spot as chair for the Romero Institute.

Sorry for long windedness, thanks again, Garrett.stephens (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Garrett.stephens, I only did some formatting-type cleanup. The institutions disappeared when the infobox went from academic, where it is |workplaces= to philosopher, where it is |institutions= (or something like that - it's hard to remember all the variations). Anyway, I have no knowledge of this person or how best to classify him. Philosopher seems fine to me for the short description. As far as which infobox to use, it doesn't matter unless there are some fields in one that are important to use that are not available in the other. Right now, it is only using fields that exists in both (although by a slightly different name). There are some fields in the philosopher infobox like |school_tradition= that are unique to philosophers, so if you wanted to use one of those fields you would need to use that infobox. MB 04:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah beautiful, thank you regardless for your help. And I think school_tradition is something that should be used!

Garrett.stephens (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for review

Requesting the editor to review a page Vinothcj (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hii, pls review the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Annamalai_Kuppusamy Vinothcj (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about citations and the Internet Archive

Hello, sorry to bother you again--for the Marcel Aymé article I have a number of citations that lead to works that are searchable and checkout-able on the Internet Archive. For the citations I tried to put in links that led to the exact page of the reference on the IA, and this seemed to work initially, but now it just links to the book itself, usually just the front cover (this is whether I'm logged in or not at IA). I used the automatic citation feature for these, would it be better to do it, I guess, manually? (Does any of this make any sense?) Hérisson Ford (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Hérisson Ford

Hérisson Ford, Sorry, I don't know much about IA. I would pose this question at the WP:Help Desk. Help:Archiving a source may lead you to something helpful also. MB 01:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Will do, thanks again! Hérisson Ford (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Hello, MB:
Since you are much more active on Wikipedia than I, let me pose a question that I have not been able to get answered.
If a company changes their name, i.e. Callaway Gardens is now Callaway Resort & Gardens, should the wikipedia article
be moved to the new name, or just stated in the original article and a redirect created for the new name? Ditto for
Gulf Coast Toyota Distributors --> Gulf Coast Toyota. Thanks.
Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 21:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Mgreason, There have been discussions about this, which I don't have time to hunt down. There are editors who believe an article should follow the "official name" and are quick to do page moves to reflect what an organization chooses to call itself. The the actual policy is WP:COMMONNAME - we used the most common name, or what is used by a majority of sources. That is why American Airlines is at that title and not American Airlines, Inc. So there is no rush to change Callaway Gardens to Callaway Resort & Gardens, the redirects suffice. But a move is certainly not precluded. At some point, if third-party sources more often refer it as Callaway Resort & Gardens, the page should be moved. (Or to even to Callaway Resort, if that was more commonly used than the longer name). MB 22:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Did I follow the proper procedure for uploading this image?

I think I remember getting into trouble with this a long long time ago, so I just want to make sure I'm doing it right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cover_of_1st_French_edition_of_La_Jument_Verte_by_Marcel_Aym%C3%A9,_1933.jpg Hérisson Ford (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Hérisson Ford

Hérisson Ford, I am not an expert in image licensing, but it looks fine to me for fair use. The image is only used in the article on the book. I believe a bot will reduce the resolution if that is necessary. You are acting in good faith, so don't worry about "getting in trouble". If there was a problem with the image (which I doubt}, and it were deleted, and you just put it back without fixing the problem, then that could become an issue. MB 14:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Page haven't been reviewed

Hi Dear MB Ji, This is Sams321 i found some artice are created in the mid of the march month did not reviewed till now

i pleased to you for review it, it's taking to longer than expected, your review encourage to users for create more article and gives the best encyclopedia to the public and readers.(Thank You) Sams321 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ariki

Thanks for this fix to Ariki. I had added the headnote a couple of days ago, then changed Aliki to a dab article and neglected to fix up Ariki. So thanks for cleaning up my mess! --Macrakis (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Teyora - Development first look!

Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.

You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.

There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature

*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.

All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Career in C Major

Dear MB: As a Master Editor, you know very well that I am loading the article. You interrupted that process. Why are you so anxious to add the "orphan" notice? I would fix in a few minutes. As it is, I have to start the loading process over again. --CerroFerro (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean by "loading the article" or why you have to start over again. MB 18:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Career in C Major is linked to James M. Cain. Why is it still orphaned? --CerroFerro (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The tag was applied by an automated tool because at that time there were no links to the article. The tag will stay there until it is removed. Since you have added a link from another article, you can go ahead and remove it yourself now. MB 18:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Best Wishes. CerroFerro (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit reversion confusion

Hi MB, I just received the following from Sphilbrick:

Recent edit reversion In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see the brief summary just below your name . . . ? Perhaps you could provide a direct link? Hérisson Ford (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yikes! It looks like you've removed just about all my contributions to this article! :-( Hérisson Ford (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what the copyright issue is, and I think Sphilbrick says he is on hiatus! Can you help me figure out what I did wrong? Hérisson Ford (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)‪Hérisson Ford

Hérisson Ford, If you go to the page Kōbō Abe and click on the history tab, you will see the edit summary. Sphilbrick determined that you added copyrighted information and gave the url of the place it came from. He also linked (in the message on your talk page) to the copyright policy. Hope that helps. MB 01:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Does he mean this link?: https://adebiportal.kz/en/authors/view/350

I've never seen this link before today, and I've never cited it. How do you (plural) know that adeportal didn't just copy this from Wikipedia? And if they didn't, the changes I've made would, I would think, make it less, in violation of copyright. I don't know, maybe I'm not cut out for this. Hérisson Ford (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hérisson Ford Yes, that is the link. Sometimes other sites do copy from WP. But in this case, you added the edits in question today, so it is highly unlikely that they copied your work the same day you added it to the article. If you did not see this website before, where did you get the text? Maybe there is another website that has the same text that is a copy of that site, or is the original. Regardless, if you copied text from anywhere, it is a problem. WP articles must written in your own words and free of even "close paraphrasing". There are automated tools that look for copyvios; that is probably what flagged this. I am not an administrator, so I can't see the deleted edits. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste. MB 02:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The content from the adebiportal link has mysteriously disappeared. I honestly don't know what's going on here. From what I recall, the article on that site was how the Kobo Abe article used to look, before I even started editing it. I have never knowingly plagiarized anything, and have made a concerted effort to write things using my own words. I spent a lot of time on this article, finding sources, rewriting, adding text, and at no time did I simply do a wholesale cut and paste from one site to another. Someone before me may have, but I most certainly didn't. I'm thinking that I'm probably a little too thin-skinned to be a wikipedia editor; this is why I left academia, too much hard work arbitrarily obliterated from existence without warning, arbitrarily, and without any apparent rhyme or reason! It might be nice if Philbrick could have left the article up, flagged it, and then I could have tried to find out what the problem is, but it seems to have been erased from the history. I thought all earlier versions of Wikipedia articles were able to be viewed, but I guess not. I'm not a digital native like you and probably most other folks on Wikipedia are, and I guess I don't totally get it--anyway, I think I'm just not cut out for this, so I'll be signing off. MB, I do appreciate your help and sorry that things didn't work out. Hérisson Ford (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hérisson Ford, I found that page, it is now here. WP cannot leave copyvios up because it is illegal. That is way it was redacted from the history. Ordinarily, all old versions of an article can be viewed. Now if this is all a mistake, there must be some explanation. You should not get discouraged. WP needs more editors. Let's give Sphilbrick time to respond. He has been editing every day recently so will probably be back within a day.

Sorry, I have been away for a while and recently returned partially.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

More info:

Rationale As mentioned in my edit summary, I some material being added would appear to be too close to material found at this site (Note this is not the link mentioned in the discussion above).
Viewing earlier versions It is generally correct that all prior versions are viewable but there are a few exceptions and this is one of them. We do not permit copyright violations and that extends to all prior versions, so when there is a copyright violation, we want prior versions to be hidden.
Erased from History. Not erased but hidden. They are not completely gone and I can restore the view if it's relevant to sort out what happened.
Why not a full investigation first? You didn't explicitly ask this, but occasionally new editors ask why we act so quickly, rather than doing a full-blown investigation before removing material. The answer is twofold — we are trying to drink from a fire hose, dealing with hundreds of potential copyright violations every week. My track record is I get about 98% of them correct based on my limited review, and the second reason for handling quickly is that in the few instances of error, it's trivial to undo them.
Perhaps it was copied from Wikipedia? Perhaps it was. That is permitted but must be done in a particular way. Editors should not simply copy, they must provide attribution and that's documented at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Editors who review reported potential copyright violations do check to see if that guideline was followed, which did not happen in this case. It still may be the case that this edit consisted of copying within Wikipedia and the guideline wasn't followed. If that's the case it will be trivial to restore the edit and then comply with the guideline
Academia - obliteration without rhyme or reason While I personally didn't encounter this in academia I know that it can be a problem. While Wikipedia is far from perfect, it is an important part of our culture that removals do have to be accompanied by at least reason if not rhyme. My edit summary, while terse, explained the issue, and my longer comment on your talk page explained my willingness to discuss the issues. I apologize for not updating my hiatus message which I have now updated.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Approve

Hi please approve this page! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilaf_Asmara Bawah Nama Cinta (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Please approve if it is okay

Hi Editor Please look at this Meghar Singh Sakarwar and if it is okay ( which in my view as of now it is fine) you may take the decision as per your conscience. Please do look at the rating part as well. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Chinatown, Phoenix

On 25 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chinatown, Phoenix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most of the Chinese in the Chinatown of Phoenix, Arizona, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chinatown, Phoenix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chinatown, Phoenix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

deprecated infobox parameter

Hi... refer to your edit here, you mentioned that preceding2 parameter up until preceding6 is deprecated infobox. However, I couldn't find any mention that preceding2-6 parameters are deprecated in Template:Infobox law enforcement agency or discussion to deprecate that parameter in talkpage. For example, formedmonthday and formed year are deprecated and is shown as strikethrough text. Could you please explain your reason. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ckfasdf, that was a poor edit summary. Only preceding7 is unsupported. My reason for removing 2-6 is per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes are not supposed to be "mini-articles" and should only contain the most important information. Listing all the predecessors before there was even a country of Bangladesh, which are given very little "coverage" in the article are just "infobox bloat". The infobox should be a quick summary of the article. MB 05:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it was somewhat reasonable to remove listing for all the predecessors before there was even a country of Bangladesh. however IMO, East Pakistan Rifle is OK to be listed since it played crucial role during the formation of Bangladesh itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ckfasdf, go ahead and add it, fine with me. MB 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hay hood

Hey there (pun intended), there is need for an architectural term article on Hay hood, currently a redlink. I haven't done the general internet search to identify good sources with historical sweep perspective. [This short page at state of PA] is just the first hit i encounter where the term is defined. I wonder if its invention can be isolated. There is a photo in the barn article. There are now just four inbound links that I recently added, and there is Category:Barns with hay hoods with just three members. However a hay hood is a distinctive and interesting architectural feature, and I know I have seen many NRHP-listed barns with at least one. The term should be used in some hundreds of articles. I suppose they are not distributed evenly as percentage of barns that exist in each U.S. state, say, because of climate and agriculture differing. I think it was you who wrote very intelligently (where? in article about some other type of barn? some kind of dairy barn in the Midwest?) about hay baling (which protects hay even when bale is outside) eventually replacing use of most barns that had stored loose hay?

Almost a year ago I started Draft:Hay hood and collected a few photos including from Canada, Germany, and Nederland. I would be very happy if you chose to take on the task of creating a decent article on this term. Either developing from that draft or creating anew. I would contribute some effort too, like perhaps to browse through all the Category:Barns on the National Register of Historic Places to identify many more examples. And to do internet searching. Either way, again, i'm glad you're on board and hope you are well. --Doncram (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. By the way I've been editing less frequently than i did for a long time, for reasons of bad internet access and other life stuff.

Oh, Gothic-arch barn is what i was remembering. Hmm, trying the "reply" feature for the first time, replying to myself in this case. :) Doncram (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it could work with, but preceded, the hay carrier invention of Louden Machinery Company. --Doncram (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Doncram, done. I barely found enough to write an article, but Hay hood is now a short article. MB 01:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s great! Thank you for developing it. It seems encyclopedic, and i like how you note the sparrow-proof type and the Oregon valley ones tersely without angst about how general or not those types might be. I’ve added inbound links and more articles to Category:Barns with hay hoods, from Alaska through Connecticut so far. Only I think qualification of “any roof type” to “any gabled roof” or “any gable-ended roof” is needed, because I don’t see how any Category:Round barns can have one. Some do have projecting dormers, though, but not to the outside edge/eave AFAIK. If i come across a round barn that does have a hay hood as i march through all barns having articles in all states, I’ll plan to add mention as a notable exception. Thanks, truly, you’re awesome! —Doncram (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I read somewhere about a round barn with a hay hood. See [1], which I just found. This is not the one I remember from yesterday. this shows a round barn with dormers. Move a dormer down to the edge of the roof and make it protrude and it is a hay hood! MB 15:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Doncram, I just found The Round Barns of Kansas by Kansas Historical Society. It has photos. One is the "LEAVENWORTH COUNTY—HENRY BIEHLER BARN" on NRHP before it burned down. MB 15:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Argh, lost my reply. Okay, yes, i see Biehler and other examples in that Kansas collection, and there are others shown in List of round barns in other states. It sure seems like working against type, destroying the aesthetic of an otherwise possibly elegant round barn. Speaks to the utility of the feature, and to the impracticality of the round design. Especially odd (though not as ugly as the ones with big hoods) are the few having a small hay hood dormer part way up the dome-like roof. Where hoists can’t work, though a conveyor belt could reach? Perhaps where the hay hood is added later, and that’s the best that can be done. It should be mentioned in round barn that a strike against round design is difficulty of adapting design to allow a hay hood. Up front, there is loss of economy of materials, loss of strength against wind load, loss of aesthetic apoeal. If to be added later, much more awkward to add than to a gabled barn (similar to difficulty of expanding by adding shed-roofed sections or abutting up to another barn building. —Doncram (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI i did most development of the round barns list, cooperating with Dale J Travis who has the biggest set of webpages on the subject, partly when I couldn’t edit NRHPs for a while. But unfortunately have relatively few photos. —Doncram (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Doncram, I won't be adding anything to round barn because I didn't find any mention of hay hoods on round barns in any sources. Not that I disagree with it, but it can't be sourced. Maybe there is some offline info somewhere, but the one "in-depth" source I used in the article was the only one I could find and it didn't mention round barns. MB 21:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This article on preserving barns discusses round barns being economical in enclosing space, and suggests they weren’t as efficient as claimed, but yeah it doesn’t address the fact of hay hood modifications reducing the economy. Nor do i recall any other source on round barns addressing hay hood problems. I will watch for such now, and the world is better for having articles on both topics which might be expanded to address each other. I do think it would be okay/good to address round barn hay hoods lightly by use of a photo or two, and maybe a hint in a photo caption or a note, though not expounding without sourcing like i did here. And I’m not sure what a note or caption could say, hmm. —Doncram (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Doncram, I added the statement "Hay hoods have been built on round barns" and a photo.

Thanks, i think that’s good. Interesting that in that Ojo Caliente round barn example, the hay hood was in fact added later, consistent with my speculation here. —Doncram (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Argh, does the lead definition of a hay hood need modification to allow for any dormer for taking in hay? The Ojo one, which indeed is, rightly or wrongly, termed a hay hood in its NRHP doc, and other round barn ones are not roof ridge extensions. And from its main photo at least I can’t tell if the Ojo dormer’s roof is especially projecting. I think hay hood definition logically should require something like a hood, so that any opening on a gable end is not accepted. But is any opening on any dormer, ie with or without hood-like projecting dormer roof, accepted? I dunno if any architectural dictionary definition exists which makes the distinction. So Wikipedia coverage could not impose a restriction on what is correct or not here. We could only note that in some cases the term hay hood has been used for dormers, at least on round barns (list examples) and maybe possibly for dormers on ridged barns. —Doncram (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Doncram. OK, I put in a note - I doubt we will ever find a formal definition of hay hood on round barn. I don't really like that photo; with the railing it looks like more of a balcony. Maybe that is what it is used for now. I'm not sure if this is a functioning barn anymore (probably not) or what is it used for. If you find a better usable image for a round barn hay hood, please swap it. The Kansas book had those really ungainly giant ones that tied into the peak of the roof. Something like that might be better. MB 20:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Red-Haired Shanks vote

Thank you for your edits to the Red-Haired Shanks article. Currently a user proposed it is an article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red-Haired_Shanks. Feel free to make your opinion known. --Plumber (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Chinese Cultural Center, Phoenix

On 2 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chinese Cultural Center, Phoenix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Phoenix's Chinese Cultural Center (pictured) was remodeled into an ordinary office building over the objections of preservationists and community groups? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese Cultural Center, Phoenix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chinese Cultural Center, Phoenix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,639 views (610.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Closure request for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#INFONAT

Hey. Just giving you this as a courtesy message, as I'm not sure if you saw the result at WP:CR before the bot archived it. After reviewing the discussion, after reading the IP closer's reply, I believe I identified a consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Norfolk and Western 611

Hey, do you think you can do some copy-edits on the Norfolk and Western 611 page? I think it need some of its grammar and punctuation corrected. Trains13 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Catslide gable

Another architectural term: catslide gable, which i've seen plenty of, but never gad a term for. Comes up at Draft:Henry K. and Mary E. Shaffer House, an "English-Norman" style house. Usage by History Colorado puts the term in air-quotes; it seems informal and maybe there is a different formal term. Looks related to many porte-cocheres, too, to me. Doncram (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Doncram, I don't see enough here for an article. Catslide seems to be used to describe any roof where the eve on on side is lower than the other. The Saltbox house is the same concept, but that name is more of a New England thing and it generally is a house that is two stories in the front and one in the rear. Catslide was more of a southern name, although it originated in England. Catslide roof already existed as a redirect to Saltbox house. I expanded that article with more on catslide, and pointed Catslide gable there too. MB 04:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for your kindness in making an effort on this. I haven't searched much yet, but I do understand there might not be enough sourcing out there for a separate article on it. I was caught up with enthusiasm in finding a term, any term, for this kind of house with an unusual front which I have always liked and noted. E.g. where I grew up my neighbor two houses down had this type of front, and there is another on the next block, and very occasionally throughout the larger neighborhood there are other instances. This is in the Syracuse, New York area. But I am not sure that "catslide gable" term is actually used, in general or even just one time ever, for saltboxes, which also would not often be geo-located close by. I think the new section on "catslide" there is too prominent, undermining the important, simple saltbox architecture subject of the article. I'm not sure if "catslide gable" could redirect to coverage placed somewhere else (maybe in the appropriate article to be titled something like English-Norman architecture or covered in Norman Revival architecture or what), or to a less-salient note in that saltbox article. --Doncram (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

14.05.2022

I was genuily surprised when I saw you revert my edit with the wording: "unexplained/not discussed". Because i did EXPLAIN my edit right in the edit summary and according to BOLD I don't have to discuss my edits on the talk page every time I make them. African Americans, just like White Americans or Asian Americans are just racial-demographic groups in the USA. But nowhere are there any reliable sources that tread all these groups of American people as "ethnic groups" or "nationality" in a similar way to "Chinese", "Germans" or "Russians". TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

TyronMcLannister, the point of including African-American here is as an example of something that should not be linked because its meaning is commonly understood. This is not an article on African-Americans and it is saying nothing about the term except don't link it. If if bothers you that much, then change "nationalities and ethnicities" to something more general. MB 16:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Understood your idea. I want there to be no confusion, so I change "nationalities and ethnicities" to "demographic groups" TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Hay hood

On 17 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hay hood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some barns have hoods? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hay hood. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hay hood), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Rankin (photographer)

I appreciate you looking in on this. Unfortunately I am not a London based arty type so this has been a bit of a copy edit thing. I started on it because the guy (briefly) went to the same school as I did, some time after me. Many thanks. Ed1964 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP

Hi. Are you actually intending publishing this any time soon? If so, may I offer some very minor suggestions for the text? BTW, I am also a MMS if you need anything doing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I had just asked for such assistance at the project discussion page, which you have probably seen by now. MB 01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't, but Ill take a look at your draft and make some changes. If you don't like them you are welcome to revert. NPP has massive problems right now, not just the huge backlog that will reach 16,000 by the end of the week, but there is a very worrying exponential increase in the number of reviewers being caught and blocked for using the system for UPE and socking. Not that any of this needs to be mentioned too loudly right now, but as soon as NPP can make up its mind about coordination, some changes could be put in the pipeline. It's a shame I've basically retired from Wikipedia - and shepherding NPP and its software for well over a decade despite what some people say about commenting from the sidelines, but all good things come to an end, and I'm very much in my twilight years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Please check it out. It's still 99% what you drafted of course, but with some language slightly rationalised and some more accurate info added. Let me know if you're happy with it and I'll send it for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Another user has kindly copyedited it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at it again now and making some futher changes. I'll let you know when I'm done. Thanks. MB 02:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks good already to another editor, but of course you should have the last call. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I have made more changes. Most significantly, I'm directing it towards the active reviewers. There are ~250 with NPP that haven't been active in the last month - so expecting much from them is not realistic. Same with admins. I manually went through the top 100 reviewers (those with 8 or more reviews) and counted a dozen admins on the list. So to say that there are all these people to work on the problem makes is seem like an individuals effort is less important. But there are realistically only 450, not 1700.

Also changed your suggestion to review 20 "this week". Was that one time to kick-start the reduction, or every week?. To me it sounds like a lot. One a day seems less "frightening" and more sustainable. MB 03:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If they do one a day it will take two yerar. It's quite plausible for a reviewer to patrol an article in 3 minutes if they did their homework before requesting the user right. A lot of research went into it before I created the right. In hindsight, I don't think ICPH did us a favour with his flowchart although I encouraged him to make it. I didn't realise that he had something so complex and time-consuming in view. Serious work like NPP should, IMO, not be attempted on a telephone - that would be silly - I used to stack up new articles in tabs and let them load while working on the others. A modern OS also benefits from creating multiple desktops. Serious Wikiedia backroom workers can afford at least a laptop. Admins generally won't review new articles - they consider themselves above such menial, and soul destroying tasks. One does need to emphasise somehow that a lot of the reviewers really are just plain old hat collectors, that's why we recently introduced timed probation for the user rights.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

There is little to be gained by giving the impression we have more active reviewers than we actually do. One must try to encourage those who are 'fairly' active to have a concentrated stab at getting the backlog reduced, otherwise you'll just have to make an argument at the WMF to extend the un-patrolled period, and believe me, that would be no easy task, even if you have friends there and meet them personally - been there, done that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung I don't disagree with most of what you said. In fact, I am trying to avoid the impression that there are more active reviewers by saying there are only 450 and not publishing the 1700 number. But IMO, talking about reviewing techniques, types of computers, and hat collectors does not belong in the newsletter. As far as the goal, the current top 100 did about 9,500 reviews (last t-30 days). If all 450 active reviewers were doing one/day, 30/month, that would be an additional 12k per month. I think that would turn the trend around. MB 04:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your optimism. We'll talk again in a month or two.

I'm not saying reviewing techniques, types of computers, and hat collectors should be in the newsletter - that was just some background information for you. The important thing of course is getting that newsletter sent. It's an excellent initiative you've taken and if you don't want to make any further changes, I will of course send it for you. I would have written a newsletter myself but I'm more or less retired from backroom work these days and over a decade of shepherding NPP, and I've gone back to occasionally writing new articles. That's why a newsletter hasn't been sent in recent times. BTW, we've also lost Celestina007 who has been banned from NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, Yes I am happy with it, please send it. I have since found the page where I can request a mass message to be sent. I think I will write a newsletter every month or two as my contribution to coordinating NPP. For such infrequent use, I don't think I need to ask for the mass-sender right and can use that so you can stay more in retirement. By the way, I am not optimistic that asking in the newsletter with have much effect, but it may inspire a few to pick up the pace. What to you think about this one time, in light of the present situation, sending this newsletter to all admins? (probably a special version with an extra paragraph explaining why they are getting it and asking for some reviews from them). MB 04:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you really want that picture of the NPP Cup in the newsletter? Nobody can be bothered to follow through with awards and other encouragement since Barkeep49 and I stopped coordinating the process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I hadn't really paid any attention to that. I did not put it there intentionally. I was copying from your last newsletter. MB 04:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Knowing admins as I do (I used to be one), I think not only would it be a waste of time, but they might not appreciate it. Besides, adminship is a bit like NPP, only a tiny fraction of them are active in any way at all. The statistics of 'active' are based on a ridiculously low threshold and are just as misleading. You are always welcome to ask me to send mass messages. I'm permanently logged in and use the encyclopedia for other work almost 24/7. It's still early morning here. I'll send it as soon as I've finished my coffee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

Hello MB,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 858 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of children of the presidents of the United States § Cropped version of the Harriet Lane photograph.... Shearonink (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Parmar

See this page also. Parmar TheManishPanwar (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Newsletter sent

Your message has gone out to the 836 users on the mailing list. Some of them might be admins or former admins who added themselves or were already reviewers before the passed RFA, while others may have had their rights rescinded, or are simply just curious users; removal from the list is not automatic, it has to be done manually by someone who is sufficiently interested in NPP coordination tasks. Naturally, I no longer do it.

Respecting your wishes, I haven't changed it back, but the backlog (according to the graph) has grown in just 9 weeks, not six months, and that level has not been seen since I created the user right for qualified reviewers and the work stabilised in the following months to a backlog of only 700 - so it can be done. If you are really interested, an article in The Signpost on the background is here. (I initiated The Marshall Plan, a play on the name of a post WWII rebuilding scheme for Europe which I remember well as a young child). I worked intensively with WMF developer Marshal Miller whose collaboration with the community was at an unprecedented and unusually high level for the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, the latest NPP backlog chart shows a sudden reversal. Amazing what one newsletter can accomplish. Of course it has only been a day and who knows if we can sustain this for a while.

The backlog chart show the number in the queue. Is there a way to see how many articles are added and removed as well? I have no idea whether the number of new articles is relatively constant. I would guess that the variation in the backlog is nearly 100% due to NPP activity. MB 04:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There was big drop in the number of junk articles when WP:ACREQ was rolled out in 2018 and for the WP:ACTRIAL experiment there were ways of obtaining those stats - it's all been done in the past and the new policy was deliberately created as a direct result of the insurmountable backlog. You'll have to do some digging. There's a faint chance that Barkeep49 or TonyBallioni or one or two others who are more adept at data mining than I am will remember more, but it's tough if there are no longer many reviewers around with a long institutional memory, but that's the way the cookie crumbles I'm afraid. If 90 days is no longer enough to prevent unpatrolled trash from falling into Google's greedy hands, you can blame me for that - it's what I asked for. You can ask at Phabricator to have it extended to 120 but good luck with that if you don't have any friends there - you might find a sympathetic ear with Marshall but he may have since shifted his focus or no longer have any influence on NPP issues - indeed, the WMF revolving door doesn't do much for long-term memory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Communications Engineering

Hi! Could you please explain why you reverted the Communications Engineering page? I'm fairly new on Wikipedia so I make mistakes, but I would like to not repeat them so a motivation why my edit was reverted would be appreciated. SakurabaJun (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

SakurabaJun, the journal is pretty obscure. Most people (the vast majority) who search on Communication Engineering are probably looking for the profession, so the term should go there to inconvenience the fewest. I added a redirect hatnote there to direct someone looking for the journal on to the article. See WP:PRIMARYTARGET. MB 04:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanks! SakurabaJun (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No idea what happened

Whatever happened was not purposeful. Wonder if something got touched on my watchlist when closing my ipad. I apologize for the apparent misclick.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit notices on the Mitter curtain article

Is there some reason under which Mitter curtain is marked for copy editing? What's wrong with the wording in the article: is it not suitable for Wikipedia? Can you please clarify? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 10:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Angela, I added the tag because the grammar needs cleanup. The first sentence says "all across the world" which should be "worldwide". The next sentences says "whatever car washes carry them" which is passive voice and should say "in some car washes" or something similar. It just needs cleanup by a good copy-editor. MB 15:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

MB - I did partial copy editing, changed the second sentence into something similar, first sentence all across the world into worldwide. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 21:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lucy Liu edit

Thanks for pointing out that Jewish mysticism is certainly not a major religion. I appreciate the distinction. Since your reversion also restored links to Buddhism and Taoism, does that mean that neither of those is a major religion? Eddie Blick (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a judgement call. I would say most people would not consider Taoism major. Buddhism could be. MB 01:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hotel developer

Hello. Do you know if there is a definition of "hotel developer" for use in the hotel infobox ? In the Hotel Saratoga article, an editor insist on putting Coral Capital as developer, which is not true. -- Beardo (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Answered on article TP. MB 16:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Beardo (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)