User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 41

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

Image review?[edit]

Could I possibly trouble you for an image review for Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, so it can be put to bed? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturm, looks like there already is one? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<blush>I guess I forgot to scroll down far enough to see it! Thanks for checking anyway.</blush>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/SS Etruria[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping you could take a look at this nomination and assess its status with regard to close paraphrasing. I had found, within the Aftermath section, some overly close paraphrasing with regard to the NRHP source, and while there have been some edits in this regard, I think it's best if you cast your eagle eye over it and determine the current level of problem. I did tag the article with the close paraphrasing template; if it's no longer needed, please feel free to remove the template. If there are problems, and the recent edits did not adequately address them, it may be time for me to mark the nomination for closure. Thank you very much as always for your help at DYK. (I just closed the Iris article that I last asked your help on; the nominator never came back to address the sourcing and paraphrasing issues.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, I concur with the concerns you've raised there and agree with the placement of the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to look into it. I've just marked the nomination for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2020[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Annelien Van Wauwe[edit]

Nikkimaria, I just found some close paraphrasing in the article's Recordings section's second paragraph, and given that close paraphrasing was also found earlier in the review process, I was hoping you could take a look and see if I found the last of it, or if there are more instances. Many thanks. I apologize for messing up the ping from the DYK nomination page; my finger stayed on the Shift key a little too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you have the time but...[edit]

I am getting Bath School disaster ready for possible submission as a Featured Article. I have been doing deep-diving on the sources (boy those copyright volumes are so much fun to read! lol) and on the photographs in the article. My tentative conclusion is that the one book source M.J. Ellsworth's Bath School Disaster (published in 1927 but there is no record of the copyright being renewed) is public domain and almost all of the photographs (all of the photos in Ellsworth's book plus all of the newspaper/National Editorial Association/Associated Press photos) are public domain. I can find no record of Ellsworth's copyright being renewed or of the newspaper photo copyrights being renewed in 1954/1955/1956. For the pertinent discussions I'll refer you to a discussion at Media copyright and to the article's talk page Talk:Bath School disaster especially here. If you can take a look that would be awesome, thanks in advance. Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink, reading through those discussions, it's not clear to me whether we ever got an answer as to whether the images are credited to someone in the 1927 publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The photos in Ellsworth's book and their lack or credits can be seen in this online version of The Bath School Disaster. The 1st printing has an asserted copyright of 1927 but I have been unable to find a record of this in any of the Copyright records I have searched. The various subsequent Printings have no renewal of the asserted copyright in 1954/1955/1956. The photos included in the book are not credited to any entity or to any specific person or business. The only copyright statement I am aware of is when Ellsworth asserted a copyright (though apparently not registered with the Feds) over the entire content, stated plainly as copyrighted 1927. The photos that appeared in various newspapers were initially copyrighted in 1927 to National Editorial Association/Associated Press but, so far as I can tell, those various newspaper photos were not renewed in 1954/1955/1956. Shearonink (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd suggest is you add the information you've found to the description pages for these images - right now some of them just say ""scanned from historic image", which won't be enough information for an image reviewer at FAC to verify the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just adjusted/cleaned-up the permissions & sources etc for File:Bath Consolidated School.jpg and File:Bath Consolidated School (cropped).jpg. Do these look ok now for an image reviewer or do I need to do more... (I did the main File because the cropped File is extracted from it.) Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bath_School_dynamite2.jpg still has the "scanned from historic image" source, as does Bath_School_Disaster-east.jpg and Kehoe_car.jpg, whereas File:Keyhoe_sign.jpg just says "unknown". I also don't see that any of the images have been credited to NEA/AP? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that not all of the photos in the article have had their sourcing cleaned-up, I was asking specifically about File:Bath Consolidated School.jpg and File:Bath Consolidated School (cropped).jpg, I need to know if the adjustments I made to their Commons pages are good to go. So, if you just look at those 2 photos' File pages, are they filled out according to image reviewers' & FAC requirements? Or do I need to find more information, did I not do something correctly, etc...I'm working on each image in the article one at a time, doing more deep-dives into their copyright status if needed.
Referring to the NEA/AP - Some of the various photos out in the internet-ether were claimed by National Editorial Association/Associated Press (as seen here at NewspaperArchive.com) but the asserted copyrights were not renewed. I did several deep-dives into the copyright volumes from 1954, 1955, and 1956 and could find no photo renewals at all (including for NEA/AP) for any possible photos connected with the Bath School disaster. Shearonink (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think those two specific images are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you have the time if you could take a look at the 11 photos in Bath School disaster. I think all the permissions/sources/etc are good now. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like File:Kehoe_car.jpg is missing discussion of (non-)renewal. Otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. At first I wasn't sure I understood what you meant by "missing discussion of (non-)renewal" but I have now adjusted that File. I think it should pass muster at this point. Thanks for all your expertise on the images. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020[edit]

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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Neonfly Page[edit]

Thanks for your great work on editing the page.

But I didn't understand , why did you delete the link? because under the second picture is the text about the group ("Other honourable mentions for Friday also have to go to Slash, still the coolest guy in rock, and London-based Neonfly who performed early on the acoustic stage."). The acoustic stage called the Jägermeister Acoustic stage. This is very importent for the band and Dailymail is one of the famous newspapers in UK.

If you think this is possible, then return the link back, please. Maybe it can be put after the words: "a memorable performance.."

Thank you for spending your time on us!

--Yulia Markhutova (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yulia Markhutova, I've added an alternate source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria!

I've seen your source. It fits well. Thanks a lot! --Yulia Markhutova (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm not sure if you're stalking my edits, or all uses of Wikidata Infobox, but I see that you convert them to the standard infoboxes within a day of them being added. You convert them quite nicely (and thank you for taking the time to do that, rather than just removing them), but I find it makes the infoboxes more difficult to expand. Mostly it doesn't matter as I've finished working on the article by then, but in the case of Playa de Las Teresitas it's taking me a bit longer. Any chance you could wait a day or so longer before converting them, if you must, please? (Also, in that case, the date of opening was removed from the infobox, I'm not sure why.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Can I ask under what consensus you are adding the infoboxes, Mike Peel? CassiantoTalk 19:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: There's a long history here, see Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC for background (and note that only referenced info is shown in the infoboxes when I'm adding them). In this case, though, I'm only asking for a bit more time while I'm editing articles (which are either new, or didn't previously have a [good] infobox), before they are converted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike Peel, I'm keeping an eye on all uses of Wikidata Infobox - any chance you could use a different template? This one isn't particularly mainspace-ready at the moment, and isn't limited to sourced info. If not, perhaps you could throw up an {{under construction}} until you're done your expansion? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll start using {{under construction}} while I'm working on articles. I'm happy to improve the infobox template to make it more mainspace-ready if you have suggestions. It should already be limited to sourced info. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike Peel, one hopefully quick fix would be to avoid displaying parameter names when the value is unsourced - preview the template at John W. Beschter for an example. More broadly, it's not possible to say it's limited to sourced info so long as it includes the description from Wikidata, since that can't be cited there at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, "Date of birth" shouldn't be showing in that case, I'll fix that soon. That shouldn't happen for most fields, though, it's because the date of birth and date of death lines include multiple pieces of information, and the checks for those don't use WikidataIB at the moment. You're right that Wikidata descriptions can't be referenced, but then, neither can the {{short description}}s that now seem to be used here, and article intros typically aren't referenced. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't seen it already, you might want to look at the discussions around why {{short description}}s are used here instead of the previous system of just pulling them from Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussions about short description when they were happening, they are depressing and unhelpful, and offer nothing more than the Wikidata descriptions did except that they are now stored locally and can't be accessed from other wikis. And again, unreferenced. In other news, the "date of birth" field issue should now be fixed, thanks again for pointing it out. Back to article writing... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, just seems pretty clear from those discussions that the current consensus is not to use Wikidata descriptions here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the energy to argue against that right now. I can disable the descriptions in the infobox, if that's the only issue, though? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about a FAC renomination[edit]

Greetings,

since you did comment on this later withdrawn FAC I wanted to notify you that I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2020[edit]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Eagle of Georgia[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, please see Order's Talk page before once again removing sourced content without cause or consensus. Ortolan57 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Got Trouble - Notable covers[edit]

Following up to ask why the "Notable Covers" update to Ya Got Trouble made on Feb 19 2020 was removed by you on Feb 22 2020. The explanation that you left behind was "non-RS". Interestingly there were nine items in this section; only four are actual covers, while five are noted parodies of the original material, yet only a single parody was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1010:8976:B480:729F:A480:B266 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the entry I removed was cited to an unreliable source. If there are other entries there that you feel warrant removal, you're welcome to either bring that up on the article's talk page or be bold and remove them. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Sulhamstead Estate, Chiswick[edit]

Hi

Thank you for editing my page. I don’t think I have written so much since I left school, I am not sure I wrote that much when I was at school. I would like to put back part of one of your edits as it was something one of the local historians mentioned to me when I was visiting the library. “This is not about the Kings, Queens and Dukes that gave their names to the area, but about the Miss King's, Miss Dollman's and Mr Lathbury's that shaped where we live.“ There is another change “so you can continue the journey to The Vale a long time after the river disappeared. “ I’d like to put back, but references the wider area and not the area included in the article, so doesn’t change the article if it’s not included.

I also noticed you removed one of my photos, was this removed because of a size issue or for another reason. If I resize the photo can I put it back in the article?

As you may have guessed this is my first wiki article, I have referenced a few books that I haven’t directly quoted from. To save me searching all the help pages can you let me know the code to add these books as my references please.

Many thanks

Colin Colin Potter 20 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, the simplest way to add references is just to put the details of the citation in between <ref> and </ref> tags. For example, if you found some information on page 30 of the book England by John Smith, you might type<ref>Smith, John. ''England''. Oxford University Press. p. 30</ref>. WP:REFB has some more in-depth information about referencing.
I removed the photo because it was not clear to me what it was intended to show. Can you elaborate?
In general the prose I removed was because it didn't fit with the general tone and style of Wikipedia - for example, we don't generally use first or second person (which is present in both of the excerpts you want to readd). I think the second could be readded with some rephrasing, to talk about the wider area. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • Armenia report: Wiki project on Museums with My Armenia
  • Brazil report: Moreira Salles Institute GLAM initiative in Brazil
  • Finland report: The Helsinki then and now exhibition
  • France report: GLAM related blogposts
  • Indonesia report: Proposing collaboration with museums in Bali; First Wikisource training in the region
  • Netherlands report: Students write articles about Media artists, Public Domain Day 2020, Wiki Goes Caribbean, WikiFridays at Ihlia - Wikimedia Nederland in January & February 2020
  • Norway report: Wikipedia editing workshop with the Norwegian Network for Museums
  • Serbia report: Great dedication of librarians
  • Sweden report: Historic photos; Support for international Wikimedia community; Library training tour; Many GLAMs improved on Wikidata
  • UK report: Kimonos and Khalili
  • Ukraine report: Winning photos Wiki Loves Monuments shown in different cities; Libraries Lead an All-Ukrainian Challenge
  • USA report: Black History Month and Open Access Anniversaries
  • Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Summary of pilot projects, and what's next
  • Wikidata report: Leap into Wikidata!
  • WMF GLAM report: New Team Leadership, GLAM-Focused Grants Review, OpenGLAM Declaration Research
  • Calendar: March'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.

Nomination of Barrett Brown (wrestler) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrett Brown (wrestler) 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/Barrett Brown (wrestler) 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. Sismarinho (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020[edit]

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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

Please stop breaking the references on Sylvia Rose Ashby. You’ve done this twice now. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I’m not ungrateful for the edits, just please be careful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock: Did you want to use those references for something else, or should they be removed entirely? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I want them removed? I think you miss the point. I have used the children parameter correctly. I think your script is making mistakes. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock: I'm not using a script, and as I've explained on the talk page, children/parents/relatives are generally included only if notable or particularly relevant - there's no indication that's the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
they were particularly relevant - I detailed how in the article text... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock: The brother and sister, the names currently using the unique references, are not even mentioned in the article text. The children and parents are mentioned but not significantly. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only just noticed you commented on the talk page, I have responded there. This is all getting rather disheartening though. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether you could check this one for close paraphrasing, copyvio, etc. It had earlier been noted as having issues in the review, and the most recent review cites an Earwig link as evidence of continuing issues, though I'm not seeing any red flags when checking the first few results. Can you please see what there is to find, and note issues (or lack thereof) on the review? It's been stalled for a while now. Many thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

Hi Nikki, I just wanted to apologise for my behaviour the other day. I think I was having a depressive episode, so I was highly sensitive to everything. I'm saying this as an explanation, not an excuse as I am ultimately responsible for my actions. But I wanted to say sorry to you as I think I was rude and not terribly reasonable. Thank you for your work on Women in Red, I'm trying hard to get our articles up to speed and filling in the blanks as fast as I can! Your help is really valuable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Any input for Puddleglum's The Signpost article?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Tenryuu from Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator, Puddleglum2.0, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File Name is incorrect but I don't see how to change it...[edit]

File:Kentucky Mounted Militia Battle Of Raisin River Frenchtown In 1813 War Of 1812.jpg has an incorrect File name but I don't seem to be able to fix it.
A couple of things:

  • It was uploaded by a now-blocked user so I don't quite know if the permissions/sources are actually valid...I suspect not.
  • The File name should be something like File: Remember the River Raisin" a battle-cry at the Battle of the Thames . The painting is depicting a battle after the River Raisin Massacre when the memory of the Massacre had become a rallying point for the Americans during the rest of the War of 1812.
  • The pertinent articles are Battle of Frenchtown and Battle of the Thames.

Anyway you're an image expert so I figured you're probably able to move/change the file name. If you can't move it or aren't interested, that's cool. Just leave me a note here and I'll try asking elsewhere. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink, you'd need someone with the file-mover permission, but if you have reason to believe the file's permissions are invalid then we should be looking at deleting rather than renaming it. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...[edit]

... for improving Jessye Norman's article by pointing out the copyvio, borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 21 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring accessibility for Rita (opera), and even improving it. Please do the same in the other cases, sparing me to break my vision 2020 resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, given your arguments below and elsewhere about respecting the intentions of principal authors, which specific articles do you feel should change? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I seems easier to say which should NOT be changed: those by Smeat75 who said he'd leave Wikipedia.
In other cases, the top corner should not be occupied by a device with accessibility problems: an image that about half of our readers can't see, and a list that opens only by clicking the show button, which one handicapped user said is a problem for him, - enough for me to consider it a problem. Both an infobox or an image is better accessible than that, and offers room for images more relevant to an opera than one of the composer, such as yesterday's featured picture in La favorite.
An image should be used for articles by active users who declared dislike for infoboxes, such as Smerus, Ssilvers, Tim riley. Kleinzach said years ago that he no longer cares about operas. If no bottom navbox is there, it can be created.
An infobox could be used in other cases. If no bottom navbox is there yet, it can be created, or the navigation can be part of the infobox, as outlined on the template talk. (To my knowledge, it hasn't been used yet.) I'm quite willing to create more navboxes.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The principal author of Pia de' Tolomei (opera) voted Keep in the TfD; suggest you take that up with him. Otherwise I have addressed the issues you raised. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikki! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for some. I must have been unclear. The sidebar is unwanted, hidden or uncollapsed, and should be kept only when an author insists. It actually looks even worse uncollapsed. I removed four as resolved, and thank you for those. All operas are listed under infobox, not image, - all not by the authors listed. - IF image, it should be the one and only thing at the top if a bottom navbox is there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You raised the issue of accessibility problems due to people having issues with uncollapsing; a box uncollapsed by default solves that. Surely accessibility outweighs aesthetic concerns in that case? You also noted that mobile users will not see a lead image; having an image under the navbox solves that, because if the navbox does not appear it appears at the top instead. Are there any concerns unaddressed other than aesthetics? Are there changes that could be made to the templates to make them not "look even worse" in your view while maintaining the navigational aspect, which some find useful? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no problems if the templates, which duplicate the bottom navbox, were not used at all (with the only exception of articles by Smeat75). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What specific problems are you referring to, other than aesthetics? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather well known - but repeat once more - that I believe that the first thing a user sees in an article should be relevant to the article, and not take him or her away. I said so in 2013. I still believe that the sidebar (even if was without accessibility flaws which only make it worse) is in the way of that, and should be replaced by either image and bottom navbox, or infobox and bottom navbox. I thought all this was clear from my regular edit summary "deleted or not, the duplicate navbox is no service to the reader". Your unprecedented idea of having sidebar PLUS image (or infobox) PLUS the existing navbox looks clumsy to me, and is redundant, - this would profit from a discussion on project level. Voce, what do you think? - I prefer infobox to plain image, which is used in high-quality articles about major operas by major composers. Look at L'Orfeo, The Bartered Bride, Gianni Schicchi, Falstaff (opera), - the latter taken to FA status by Tim riley. Afaik, the one opera FAs with a plain image is Maritana, and the one opera FA with a sidebar (but then only a sidebar) is (besides L'ange which changed) Rinaldo (opera), to please Smeat75. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having more than one feature is not in any way "unprecedented" - compare high-profile articles such as World War II (infobox+side navbox+bottom navbox) or alphabet (image+side navbox+bottom navbox). As to the argument that the sidebar shouldn't exist at all, at the moment consensus has not been established for that view, per the TfD. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being far away from 2 comments per discussion and walk away. (I am busy with Jutta Lampe who died, and had a sad stub for an article.) Sorry also for not specifically mentioning that in the context of the Composer sidebar I talk about opera only. I looked at World War II, anyway. I see an infobox first, then several different side navboxes, and several bottom navboxes which - to my observation - have different content from all side navboxes. For Rameau, however, the sidebar shows exactly the same operas as the top of the navbox. I'd call that redundant. If we'd take World War II as a model, we'd have infobox first, then sidebar, right? - All this is new for project opera. Will you please, if you think it's a good idea, discuss it on the project talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we'd take World War II as a model, we'd have infobox first, then sidebar, right? Yes, as is done with Pelléas et Mélisande (opera). Sorry also for not specifically mentioning that in the context of the Composer sidebar I talk about opera only. Sure, there are precedents there too, for example Armide (Lully) or Tolomeo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armide and Tolomeo look to me just like the old style sidebar, one that has no navbox, one with navbox. If you think, Pelléas works, why are the others different? And I still don't understand why anybody would fill the top of an article with navigation that duplicates the bottom. I'd much prefer Pelléas without that redundancy. - Again, will you propose these options on project opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think, Pelléas works, why are the others different? As per your post above with regards to respecting author preferences. With regards to proposing a project discussion... what do you feel needs proposing? I don't see anything unprecedented. The sidebars with option to expand have existed for a long time, as shown at Armide and Tolomeo so has the idea of sidebar with picture underneath, as shown at Octavia (opera) so has infobox+sidebar. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just make me understand why you put time and energy in defending and keeping alive a feature that is clearly redundant? (... while the parallel in World War II is about something different, - an analogy for opera would by a sidebar with operatic terms such as act / baritone / libretto ...) - I believe that discussion on a broader level would be needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't agree that it's useless. The TfD was a discussion on a broader level, and it didn't find consensus to get rid of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to discuss it then, because "not delete" and "actually use" are not the same for me. To my observation, most users who think the template is useless/redundant/occupying space that could be used better ... were already tired when the general discussion came up, and didn't participate. - To avoid further discussions, how is this: in cases where we have a navbox, I keep replacing the sidebar by an infobox if I think I'm not in the way of a principle editor's intentions, and you replace it by an image if you interpret said editor's intentions differently, following this example. I walk away then, and we avoid edit conflicts. You can't believe how much I'd prefer a plain image to a combination with the sidebar. - The actress is on the Main page, my next topic is Beethoven's anniversary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In all of the cases here, and in the new cases you propose, the sidebar was already actually used the article, before the TfD existed. I don't know why that would need a new consensus, as it was the status quo. If you want to mass-replace it, you're welcome to propose that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar was there, sure, nothing new, but it has considered to be inferior to an infobox in many cases, and to an image in others. FA examples given above, all these had a sidebar originally. There was no individual discussion (a perennial waste of time, but exercised in 2015) but project operas guidelines. Infobox opera was established as an option in 2013, and in none of the (as of today) 1326 cases, the sidebar has been kept also, afaik. That is my status quo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just read again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 125, with the entry from the guidelines quoted in bold, and "bloody waste of time" mentioned (not be me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Time Rock and Roll.[edit]

Hi Nikki can you please see if I referenced this YouTube video properly? It was showing many options. Here is my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Time_Rock_and_Roll

Here are the ways it says you can do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:YouTube/sandbox

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wifey93, you need to fill in |id= and |title=, as I've done here. However, the existence of the YouTube video isn't enough to include the mention because it doesn't demonstrate that it's significant to the subject - see this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had googled how to reference YouTube as I've not done that before. It wasn't showing one like that with the ID. I was able to get the article to go to the YouTube video however by clicking on the link in the Old Time Rock and Roll page Wifey93 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris parents[edit]

How can grave of his father and paper written by Chuck Norris himself were he tells that his mother will be 99 on 4 May 2020 be unreliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miloradovan, the paper is borderline - I could see an argument for including it, but generally we err on the side of not including personal details like DOB for living people who are not notable. As to the grave, that is a primary source and one that doesn't directly connect to the article subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least that I can accept as an fact. But one day when she dies I will add her. Many actors and actresses have their parents dates of DOB and DOD on their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers login[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I created an account on Newspapers for my email address as instructed on 26 March, but I have yet to hear anything since. I commented on my application, but not sure if it got lost. Thanks! PotentPotables (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PotentPotables, thanks - for some reason didn't get a notification on that, will follow up. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • Australia report: Know My Name; Public libraries of Queensland join Wikidata
  • Colombia report: Gender gap, Wikipedia and Libraries from the GLAM team
  • France report: WikiGoths; WikiTopia Archives
  • Indonesia report: Volunteers' meet-up; Wiki Cinta Budaya 2020 structured data edit-a-thon
  • Ireland report: Video tutorials; Celtic Knot Conference 2020
  • Kosovo report: WoALUG and NGO Germin call Albanian Diaspora to contribute to Wikipedia
  • Netherlands report: Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen contributes to Wikimedia Commons again; Student research on GLAM-Wiki at Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Serbia report: March Highlights - Everything is postponed
  • Sweden report: FindingGLAMs; Wikipedia in libraries; Art from the Thiel Gallery Collections; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete
  • UK report: Colourful Kimonos from Khalili
  • USA report: Women & Editing in the time of virus
  • Special story: COVID-19
  • Wikidata report: Lockdown Levellings
  • WMF GLAM report: Mapping GLAM-Wiki collaborations
  • Calendar: April'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.

Cora Livingston[edit]

Unless you find credible sources per Wp:PW/RS for this article you created and appear to be promoting, the unreliable source tags stay. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbaggg, along with reverting other improvements your edit restored a source that you objected to - that doesn't make any sense. Further, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive list of every possible reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless they can be challenged until proven reliable. Hence I haven't removed anything, just added unreliable tags. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've not provided any rationale for challenging the second source other than that it's not listed at WP:PW/RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine keep it this way for now. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Forty Saints Monastery, Sarandë[edit]

Nikkimaria, there were a number of passages in the article that Yoninah identified as having been copied from the sources. The nominator has said that the issue has been addressed; can you please check to make sure that indeed no more copyvio or close paraphrasing exists? Thank you very much; I hope you're having a good holiday weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Championship (Original Version)[edit]

The connection between the Women's Championship (Original Version) and the women's world championship can not be found under any WP:RY, and fails WP:V, thus it is worth mentioning that there is no link between the two and I will report you next time you keep using wp:or terms, the sources in Cora Livingston claims her as just women's champion not women's world champion. Stop pushing personal POV. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbaggg, WP:OR refers to making claims that are not found in reliable sources. The claim you added meets that definition, which is why I removed it. If you'd like to try reporting that, beware of the boomerang. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:Nikkimaria I am sorry but what I included is just to show that no WP:RS claims the two titles are linked, it is your failure for trying to push title reigns that had no connection, no source at all they were connected, I merely pointed out that there are no source to connect them, pretty sure I am allowed to disambiguate to avoid confusion. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also you have been misinterpreting sources and using OR terms, pretty sure they are unacceptable behavior. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a source to support this claim, then no, you can't include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Unless you have source to link the titles, you cannot claim they are linked. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, so we've agreed that claims should be supported by sources. Will you remove your claim that is not? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I# have not made claim, I# have stated the obvious, no link between the two has been found and to disambiguate between two different titles that have no connection you do not need sources, as I am not writing anything new, i am just disambiguate between the titles. Go seek dispute resolution if you mus, but dont drag me to edit warring, you have a history of doing that. Either find source linking them, or state that tehy are not link and disambiguate between them or just make separate titles. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I can do is just give the source which calls it as just women's championship and not world championship to show the obvious that will clear the dispute, and the no link between these two stays fine. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) We rely on what sources say, not "stating the obvious". If you want to put the work into developing two separate articles, knock yourself out; it really doesn't matter to me. But in the interim, if there aren't sources that comment specifically on linkages one way or the other, then we should make no comment on that at all. Also, you've now changed several articles (eg) to link to Women's Championship, which is a football title; please correct that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am doing it. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fixed the linking issues redirected to Women's Championship (Original Version). Dilbaggg (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lula Mae Hardaway[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lula_Mae_Hardaway

In this one I noticed the person had plagiarized rather than just showing the reference so revised it Wifey93 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Blatt[edit]

Here, I am copying the entire Talk:Josephine Blatt talk page discussion to you:

Yes she may have been the first female champion in the 1890s, but not the first wrestling champion, one of the many early wrestling titles include the American Heavyweight Championship first won by Edwin Bibby in 1881.[1] There are even earlier titles than that. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 1905 world title and 1881 heavyweight title, they have Ney Work Times edition publishing news of the title victory from 1905 and 1881 respectively: [2], [3] pure WP:V for thenm, while this so called women's championship only has modern day blogs for source, and those aren't even WP:PW/RS and make dubious claims. There are even older wrestling titles before 1881: World Greco-Roman Heavyweight Championship is from 1875, any source that claims Josi's title if at all it existed is the first recognized title, its totally dubious !

User:Nikkimaria is known for the propaganda pushing povs, she even uses unreliable sources, like once she used the pre 2013 bleacher report despite clear instruction to refrain from it on WP:PW/RS, such desperate editors are unsafe for the community ! Here is a prove of her relying on forbidden sources to push her personal pov [4] ! Dilbaggg (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked your block history, blocked for edit warring multiple time, please be rational and engage in talk page discussion than edit warring, see what I wrote above. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to engage in a discussion with you if you are prepared to be civil and actually read the policies and guidelines you're referring to. None of them allow you to alter a direct quote from a source because you don't believe it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from a source which does not fit WP:PW/RS and is contradictory to multiple valid sources from older titles , automatically makes the source unreliable if it states such false contradictory statement. I am certainly allowed to question the validity of such source and it is you who keep pushing personal pov with stubbornly quoting unreliable sources, I have also provided another example of you doing that with the pre 2013 bleacher report which WP:PW/RS forbids to use. I removed that source altogether and added an alternative source that simply says she is the first women's champion, as that source violates WP:RS. Take it to WP:DR if you must, I know what the outcome will be. I will stand my ground against usage of unreliable sources and sources that contradict reliable sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already told you, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive list of all reliable sources, and you've cited this particular source several times. It doesn't contradict the other sources you cite either, you're just not correctly interpreting it - it refers specifically to "fair wrestlers" not all wrestlers. Given that context I see no reason to question its reliability, although you're of course welcome to raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title fair wrestler is misleading, either use the exact word fair sex , instead of using fair wrestler to disambiguate it to it. Point is that it is far from the first wrestling title, but that quote makes it sound like that, so its best to use source that does not use misleading quotes like that, and I have just done that, kept the information intact that she was the first female champion using a different source, the information stays but the misleading part is removed. Also only 21st century writings cites her as more than a strongwoman, there is absolutely no news coverage from her time as her winning wrestling championship, unlike the AHC from 1881 and the WHC from 1905 which were published in the NYT 1881 and 1905 editions respectively giving them tremendous credibility, the Josie's title fails to show any such news coverage from her time, anytime before the 21 century. I am not saying you to remove the information that she was the first women's champion, just don't use the misleading and contradictory quote, and that certainly brings the validity of the removed sisterhood article as a source. Regardless the information she is a women's champion is still intact and I gave a different source, just the misleading quotation no longer exists. So lets settle the matter on this. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You actually removed more content than just the quote that you find objectionable, and the content you've replaced it with doesn't make sense as written. So unfortunately we can't just settle the matter on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then seek WP:DR and no I only removed the quote nothing else, admins can check for themselves, and you falsely accuse me of personal attack when I only showed your misleading behavior including edit warring attempt and use of non WP:RS (as with the 2011 bleacher report), well then: No Wikipedia:Harassment. Kindly cooperate on talk page without posting threats for what I have not down. Pointing your errors is not a personal attack. But you harassed me with threat. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I did no such thing. As to the content you removed, anyone can compare for themselves: these are your changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can add the latter portion back, as its not contradictory and doesn't go against WP:RS, but the quotation does not stay as it violates it. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide evidence of the source's unreliability, only your own misunderstanding of the quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided evidence above. How many times do I need to repeat myself? That was not the first wrestling title, there are multiple WP:RS citing much older titles , I have already said it about a 100 times above, please read all the points I made above as it appears you are commenting without reading. The quotation makes a false claim that it was the first fair wrestling title, it isn't true, as all the older titles have WP:RS on them proving they are much older, and thus the validity of the source is questionable and you are known to use unreliable sources as you did previously here [5] . If you are bothered so much by it I told you already to take it to WP:DR and let a neutral party judge it. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already pointed out above, the quote you object to never stated this was the first wrestling title. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It gives the misleading impression of doing that, it is not essential to use direct quotation, and the statement "first fair wrestling champion" actually does give the impression as though she was the first champion ever, this is why it is always best to use WP:PW/RS to avoid such confusion, but since you use beyond that, at least use sources that do not make such contradictory claims. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive listing of all sources that are reliable. For example, you yourself cite the New York Times above - that source isn't listed on that page, but that in no way means NYT is not reliable. The source you're claiming is of questionable validity is used elsewhere, not only in that article but also by you yourself at the women's championship article, meaning that if there is any actual reason why its reliability is questionable then we should replace it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many unreliable sources are still used elsewhere due to lack of monitoring, wrestlezone which has been classified as unreliable for example is still sued in a lot of wrestling articles as sources. They were only classified unreliable after certain misleading information was published, and the sisterhood is doing the same, it definitely is a contradictory statement that goes against all other WP:RS, the NYT isnt listed in WP:PW/RS because it is an already accepted WP:RS not just for pro wrestling articles, and seeing such a misleading quote on sisterhood, I will take it out to project page to classify it unreliable later, but even you seem to agree that she was not the first wrestling champion, so why are you still trying to use this unreliable quote ? Dilbaggg (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the quote doesn't actually say that. And because the quote doesn't actually say that, you've presented no reason why the source should be considered unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented reason why iyt should be unreliable, saying something like: "the first generally accepted champion among the fair wrestlers of the USA" is just not true, she was not the first generally accepted champion, there were countless others before that and WP:RS proves that, this false quote is clearly contradictory to that all, makes sisterhood unreliable. This false quote must not be used until its reliability is proven. I already kept saying this multiple times, yet you say I have not given reason ! Dilbaggg (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you have said multiple times is that you interpret that quote to mean "first generally accepted champion", period. But that isn't what it says. No one - not me, not that source - is disputing that other champions existed earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the first generally accepted champion among the fair wrestlers of the USA", so what does it say then? Fair wrestler, does it mean that she was the first fair and square wrestler? Does it mean other wrestlers who were champion did not have fair and square matches? Just because it has the term fair before wrestler does not nullify the misleading impression the questionable article is trying to give. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It means among women. Happy to expand the quoted section if needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that the case please do, though I have no idea if the term fire is synonymous to female/women, however if that is the case expand the quote to show it means among women just to avoid confusion. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of Josephine Blatt looks beautiful, cheers, I support articles on historic female athletes as long as they maintain authenticity, this one now does, and so alls well that ends well. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter or whatever you celebrate[edit]

or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about capitalization[edit]

Hi, Nikki - it's been a while since we've communicated. I can't remember who told me quite a while back to capitalize titles in books and newspapers even if the source didn't - and for some reason, I'm thinking it may have been you. If so, does that still hold true? If not, what are your thoughts about it? Atsme Talk 📧 01:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme, the applicable guideline is MOS:CT. That being said, in terms of citations so long as whatever's being done is reasonably consistent I don't usually fuss with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020[edit]

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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Drew Cultural References[edit]

Hey there, I noticed you removed the "Cultural References" section to the Nancy Drew page. Was this due to the ones listed not possessing references or pages of these types no longer containing sections of the sort? --H. Roosevelt (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi H. Roosevelt, the ones listed did not have reliable sources indicating their significance - see this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is ...[edit]

ir? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it is Image Review. I'm guessing this edit was an error? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FF, yep, thanks for fixing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

It may not be necessary, but I just wanted to say thank you for approving my most recent Wikipedia Library application, as you did for my previous ones. I'm so excited to have access to this latest resource! Have a great day, Moisejp (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Derek[edit]

There must be a gremlin at play. I am utterly confused how I can be adding something when I thought I was deleting it. It was my intention to delete the non-notable parents - I'm sure I saw them there earlier. I think I need to get out and get some air...oh, I cant. CassiantoTalk 23:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: They were there a couple of days ago, before I took them out. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that; I can only imagine that it was some sort of edit conflict...who knows. I'm utterly perplexed. CassiantoTalk 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query about reasons for removing material[edit]

From the article on Lee Fierro, you recently removed the statement "and was survived by five children, seven grand-children and seven great-grandchildren" (diff). You also removed the link to an article that made that statement. So I'm curious about your reasoning for removing that material. Not disagreeing, just curious. Your edit line said "doc," but that claim was indeed documented in the linked article. If it's not a documentation issue, but a stylistic issue of some sort, would you disagree some of that material could be put earlier in the article? Many bios, for example, mention that people have had children (giving names would be preferable, but giving a number would also seem appropriate if names are not available). I'll look for your reply here since my opinions are unformed, I'm merely curious. Thanks. --Presearch (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Presearch, the relevant guideline is MOS:SURVIVEDBY. You could list children earlier in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perfect clarification. Just what I was hoping for! --Presearch (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Black Hours[edit]

That is a beautiful image of a book on the main page, and I see that you were the one who nominated the article at Wikipedia:FAC. Thank you. ↠Pine (✉) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pine, nope, wasn't me. You're looking for Ceoil. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I saw your signature at the bottom of the lede section of the nomination page. Sorry, Ceoil. ↠Pine (✉) 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained external link removal[edit]

Hello. I saw that you removed the Find a Grave external link on the Madame CJ Walker article and did not provide a reason. I and other editors have been watching the page closely due to recent increased interest in Walker and associated vandalism. The memorial is managed by Find a Grave and I don't see anything inaccurate about it. Do you? Do you have a reason for removing this link template? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DiamondRemley39, the grave is already pictured in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 38, January – April 2020[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166


May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

IP editor stalking[edit]

@Nikkimaria: It appears as though you have a stalker reverting all your recent edits for no reason. I have placed a message to WP:ANI about it, so feel free to comment there. Tknifton (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tknifton (and Vsmith), thanks - they've popped up several times over the past couple of weeks because they're annoyed about this. Nikkimaria (talk)
Fixing pings: Tknifton (and Vsmith). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neverwinter Nights 2 and links to external wiki[edit]

Nikkimaria,

With regards to the recent edit on the Neverwinter Nights 2 page, thank you for providing the link to Wikipedia's policy on external links. This helped me to understand why the link I added previously had been removed several times, often with minimal to no explanation. However, after reviewing Wikipedia's policy on this matter, I believe the external link I provided is appropriate and compliant with the policy.

In particular, the NWN2 wiki appears to comply with section 12., which provides for exceptions of links to normally be avoided (in this case, an external wiki). Section 12 precludes "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." I believe the NWN2 qualifies as a wiki with:

  • 1) substantial history of stability and
  • 2) a substantial number of editors.

I believe the NWN2 wiki meets the above two criteria as evidenced by the following:

  • 1) The NWN2 has been in existence since Dec 9, 2005.
  • 2) The Wiki has over 3,812 pages
  • 3) Contributors are not required to own the game NWN2 or be registered users on the site
  • 4) The NWN2 Wiki does not earn a profit (except possibly tangentially by the ads that appears on some of the pages, but I doubt this is a disqualifying factor), nor does it encourage the reader to buy the game
  • 5) The Wiki is intended to be a knowledge resource for those playing the game or who may be interested in the game.
  • 6) During the over 14 years this wiki has been in existence it has undergone over more edits than I can count to build accuracy, clarity and impartiality of knowledge for its readers, users and contributors
  • 7) As part of Fandom, the NWN2 Wiki is administered solely by unpaid volunteers (such as myself) and is monitored for standards of civility, decency and legality by both the admins of the Wiki, Fandom's paid staff and Fandom's automated monitoring system.
  • 8) All contributions to NWN2Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA

In light of the above, I believe the NWN2 Wiki complies with Wikipedia's policy on external wikis and hope you will see fit to leave this external link in place.

I am happy to discuss further and, if you decide it has to be removed, I will respect the decision and not get into an edit war. This was not my intention, and I apologize for appearances of doing so.

Respectfully submitted, Raelind (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raelind, I disagree with your assertion that it meets the "substantial number of editors" requirement - it looks like there have been fewer than 20 editors who have made any edits within the past year. Additionally, as per the directions on how to address disputed links, the link should be excluded from the article until you've achieved consensus to include it. I suggest you raise this issue on either the article's talk page or the external links noticeboard, but in the interim the link should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten Paraphrasing[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, As your FA review on the article suggested, I have been attempting to paraphrase certain problematic sections of the article so that it does not constitute as plagiarism. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and let me know if there are any sentences or sections that still need to be adjusted.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look I don't see anything obvious in terms of paraphrasing, although I don't have access to all of the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, though it is rather difficult sifting through all the sources to see if I did it right (or wrong). In terms of access to the sources which ones did you need?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: I thought I would explain my whole process here just to give a better understanding of my whole definition when I say "paraphrasing". Essentially, I am looking at the original quoted and explaining it in terms of what the author meant, with short blurbs in quotations where I am directly using the original author's quote. Hopefully, this is right.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's appropriate. Extensive quoting might be a style issue for some reviewers though, so keep that in mind as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden category[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I am working on Category:Wikipedia articles containing unlinked shortened footnotes. I am active in converting unlinked shortened footnotes into something more useful, & plan on training other to do this as well. If you are unacquainted with the power of this, I invite you to examine the Icarians & Oneida Community articles. This is a hidden category & thus not available to readers unless they have the option to turn hidden categories.

In the future, if you have questions about edits that I make that are invisible to the typical user, please ping me first.

Peaceray (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I know you have many more edits than I do, but considering my longevity & quantity of edits, I would appreciate a discussion before simply undoing my hidden category edits. After all,, we are both here to improve the project. Peaceray (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peaceray, could you point me to the discussion where you've established consensus for this initiative? It seems to me likely to run afoul of WP:CITEVAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, re this, please see the thread I've opened here for discussion. Nikkimaria is correct and this needs to be discussed but on the article talk page. Victoria (tk) 00:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two conversations to be had here, but I am concentrating on Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Hidden category to re-do citations first. I believe that parenthetical referencing is fully compatable with WP:CITEVAR & give a detailed explanation there. Peaceray (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image rights[edit]

Do you know how to go about letting a copyright holder release an image under commons cc; i have told them that they will no longer own it, and will be uploading on their behalf. Article is here. Txs. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, take a look at WP:COPYREQ. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jesus, that looks complicated. I have express permission, do I forward the correspondence to some one/thing? Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, yep, the email and tag you need are at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Nikki. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind using your super-powers to move File:Donnely.jpg to File:Donnelly.jpg, leaving a redirect. I misspelled the man's name, but don't want deletion/re-upload as am in contact with both the copyright owner and ORTS. Tks as always and hope you are safe. Ceoil (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, you'll need to talk to someone with the file mover permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. You were kind enough to do a spotcheck for the Meghan Trainor article here. Following which I have worked on the article a bit more and plan on taking it through another FAC. However, the FAC coords tend to be extremely strict and archive my nominations fairly quickly. If possible, I could really use a full source review at the PR page so I get enough time to work on all your comments. It would be very appreciated.--NØ 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, as a first step I'd recommend taking a look at WP:RSP - I see several sources in that article that have been flagged as potentially problematic, particularly in the context of BLPs. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Identified Buzzfeed and Bustle as potentially problematic and removed them. Looking forward to more comments!--NØ 22:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan, definitely more on that first step - for example I see the Daily Express. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've done step one. Btw please let me know if you do not have the time to commit to this, I will seek another FAC mentor should that be the case.--NØ 10:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia JSTOR Question[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure how to know if my Wikipedia library card access to JSTOR is working, do I have to do something on either accounts to enable it? I was trying to access this article which I believe Wikipedia covers access to since I don't think it's part of JSTOR books? Also, about JSTOR books, it seems that the voting page for new library card resources lists JSTOR books with twice with different links, so these votes can probably combined. Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: You'll get an email from JSTOR when your account is activated, which might take a week or two after it's approved. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • Brazil report: GLAMce at Museu Paulista: making things machine-readable
  • Czech Republic report: WikiGap 2020 in Czech Republic; International event; support for Wikimedia community; edit-a-thon run with the US embassy and the Swedish Embassy
  • France report: Association des Archivistes Francais; Palladia, a museum collection portal based on Wikimedia resources
  • Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2020
  • Ireland report: Hunt Museum image donation; Livesteaming and video demonstrations
  • Italy report: Archivio Ricordi, webinars and videos
  • Kosovo report: One Village, One Article for each village in Albania and Kosovo
  • Netherlands report: Photo collections Afrika-Studiecentrum Leiden; meetup and media donations for Wiki goes Caribbean; first online WikiFriday
  • Sweden report: Skrivstuga (edit-a-thon) online – Wikipedia in libraries
  • Switzerland report: More women on Wikipedia
  • UK report: Japanese silk and Spanish iron
  • USA report: Earth Day
  • Wikidata report: Seven Million People Can't Be Wrong
  • Calendar: May'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.

Ava Gardner[edit]

I'm confused by this edit. Why did you remove a valid parameter with information that is sourced in the article? A more detailed edit summary might help. What does "doc" mean? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sundayclose, see Template:Infobox person/doc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I still think you need to have a better edit summary. I'm sure I'm not the only experienced editor who would be confused by "doc". Sundayclose (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020[edit]

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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Narutolovehinata5[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Roselia (band).
Message added 22:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria,

Thank you for having approved my application for access to JSTOR via the Wikipedia Library card platform.

With all best regards,

Shams lnm (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking[edit]

Is the picture that I added of Pascal Langdale correct cause I don't think so.@NikkiMaria: Pixel Lupus (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixel Lupus, do you have a link to where you added the picture for me to check? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Langdaleher check please. Pixel Lupus (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Pixel Lupus (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixel Lupus, I don't see any information at the Wikimedia Commons page to support that that image is under a free license. Do you know where it came from originally? Just because something's been uploaded somewhere, doesn't necessarily mean that it's free to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of images on Stockport County F.C[edit]

Hi Thank you for reviewing the images on the Article Stockport County F.C. Right now it looks like you are seeking clarification on 4 images

  • File:Wycliffe_Congregational_Church,_Heaton_Norris.jpg
  • File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg
  • File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg
  • File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg

As mentioned these are all from the Stockport Image Archive. There are Images on the website with a Y next to the copyright point - the 4 images in question have an N next to their copyright point. The Stockport Image archive states- "© Copyright. Unless otherwise stated, the copyright, database rights and similar rights in all material published on this site are owned by Stockport Library and Information Service, Stockport Council."

So going off this, the images on the Image archive are copyright images if they have a Y next to them and are not if they have an N. I don't think these images were ever published in the United States so I don't think they would come under U.S copyright law and if they did then I would be unsure what they would come under.

I'd be happy to change the copyright status of the images but as I have mentioned I'm unsure what to tag them as going off the guidelines and tag on this page Wikipedia:File copyright tags

Thanks, Wna247 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wna247, that's why I was asking why they're not copyrighted, because that would allow us to determine what copyright tag might apply. Even if the images were never published in the US, they could be considered copyrighted there under international copyright treaties. WP:NUSC has a more comprehensive explanation of what that means. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is something I'm going to need to get my head around I have changed the tags on File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg for the moment (again can always changed it again if required)- I was looking and another football club featured article (Manchester United to be specific) and they way those images are copyright licensed to to help trying to understand this a bit better. If you now anyone who understands copyright better than I do that might be able to assist that would be great. Wna247 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wna247, if you can track down more information about the image's provenance it'd be easier to determine status. Any idea when and where these were first published? Might the archive have those details? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok looking at the archive website this is what it says for each image
  • Date: Date photo was taken if known.
  • Photographer: Unknown for most of the photos
  • Area: Where the photo was taken
  • Reference: this is the archive reference number in case you already knew it and wanted to search using it.
  • Available To Buy:Y or N
  • Copyright: Y or N

For the Wycliffe Congregational Church photo the Photographer is listed and has been credited as the Author on commons along with the date the photo was taken. For the fire at Edgeley Park photos the Image date is said to be unknown and the photographer is unknown - however the fire was on 23 July 1935 so it can be assumed this is when the image was from give or take a couple of days, but no publishing information is given. For the championship shield photo the Date is given as 28 May 1937 and the photographer is listed as Stockport Advertiser Newspaper so it can be assumed that the image was published in the newspaper on or around that time. Finally the team photograph is dated 1957 with the Photographer listed as Stockport Express so again it can be assumed this image was published. The image does say it from the start of the season, this would have been late August 1957 in this case.

Other than this information I have given you and the Copyright information as provided above in an earlier message, there is nothing else on the website that states anything about copyright ownership of the images in the archive. Hope some of this is useful Wna247 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so here's the problem. Most if not all of these, if they were published, would have been published after 1925, meaning they wouldn't automatically be in the US public domain. commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom tells us that where the photographer is unknown, photos created before 1957 that are not government works have a minimum copyright term of 70 years from creation (70 years from publication if published). This would put the most likely date of copyright expiration in the UK after the URAA date of 1 January 1996. The five-point test would thus lead us to the conclusion that the images are more likely than not still covered by copyright in the US. That's not a 100% certainty - for example if any were Crown copyright they might well be free - but in the absence of additional information that'd be my conclusion. I would suggest though if you're able that you reach out to the archive in case they have more info that might lead to a different analysis. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest I knew there were a set number of years before copyright expires but I thought it was 50 so thanks for the clarification its has made things clearer now. I'm still unsure what tag to use on the images through looking at the page you sent earlier maybe "PD-URAA" - for images first published outside of the U.S. from 1925 to 1977 (inclusive), but PD in the foreign source country on January 1, 1996" with of course the UK equivalent as well which I believe would be "PD-UK-unknown" - A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication - in this case newspapers) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1950) while the publication may be known the actually photographer is unknown" (Fire and shield winners photos) Still unsure how to tag the 1957 team photos because While the start of that season was officially at the end of August 1957 there were unofficially matches between the team before the season start. If it was taken in July then "PD-UK-unknown" might just cover it but I would need to clarify but it more than likely was taken in the August which means that this tag just about wouldn't cover it, unless you can see a reason it may. I know the newspapers these photos were published in were Local newspapers not national ones. Plus I don't think the images are Government or Crown copyright. I'd be happy to put these tags on for now. I won't be able to check for further detail in regards to copyright as all libraries in my local area are closed. I will drop them an email but may have to wait a while for a response. Wna247 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wna247, as I mentioned, I would consider it more likely than not that the images were not "PD in the foreign source country on January 1, 1996" - the images would have needed to be published by (1996-70 =) 1926, and we know in several cases that the images were created after that date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of an update on this after speaking to one of the Libraries and Archives team this is what I got back "At Stockport Heritage library where possible everything accepted into the collection has the copyrights handed over at the point of donation, to prevent problems of untraceable rights holders arising in the future." I was also told that the archive is made up of council works (E.g the newspapers) and donations (e.g the wycliffe church photo) I was told none of the works were published internationally, only locally. Any photos created before June 1957 by council works would have expired copyright 50 years after first publication. Any donations with Y next to the copyright means that the work is still covered by copyright while donations with a N means they have given up all copyright. Unsure if I can post external links but I was sent this link to the chart that the libraries use to work out copyright - https://aranewprofessionals.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/hayley-4.png Will try to get more information if needed Wna247 (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N means the copyright holder relinquished copyright, or N means the library believes the work is out of copyright due to age? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what the archives team have told me, the newspaper works are out of copyright due to age. The Wycliffe Church photo was taken to be put into the archive so the photographer has relinquished the rights to that image so its marked as N for no copyright. Wna247 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have just received three messages about these images being proposed for deletion on commons. Wna247 (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, based on the information you're providing the current tags are not correct, except perhaps in the case of the Wycliffe Church photo - that would depend on the details of the relinquishment, suggest you add any information you have about that to the image description page. Other than that one, here's where things stand for me:
  • File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg: the UK tag requires you to provide information about steps taken to ascertain authorship, and to know US status we need to know when/if this was published. If that can't be determined this would likely be considered non-free.
  • File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg: based on the diagram this may be PD but needs different tagging for sure.
  • File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg: probably not PD in the US based on possible publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have changed them but they might still be wrong or need more information so I will change/clarify if needed. Just so you are aware though the Stockport Advertiser dates back to at least 1842 (there are pages from this year on the British Newspaper Archive). The Stockport Express came around in 1953 before the two papers merged in 1981 to be known as the Stockport Express Advertiser (later shortened to Stockport Express in 1999) The Stockport Express was known as the County Express (a series of newspapers covering Manchester and Cheshire with the Stockport Edition available to Stockport residents) from 1959 until 1961. So with that the Stockport Advertiser is out of publication while the Stockport Express is still in publication but in a different form to its 1953-1959 counterpart. Wna247 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further Update - I'm still a little unsure on the right USA copyright tag to use on the images as none were published in the states. However I may look on https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/ to see if there are any images I can use that are under a form of CC license and use those instead. Unsure how this would affect the current image review on the Articles FAC nomination page. I also am able to acquire a copy of a scanned ordnance survey of the football ground from 1910 but the copyright of this may confuse me. Wna247 (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published in 1910 it'll automatically be PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might replace the image we are currently looking for copyright tags for all the tags in the comprehensive list you sent me for the USA say for example "first published" The images have not published in the USA and as I don't live in America I wouldn't know its copyright status in that country. All I know what what the Libraries and Archieve team have told me. Just want to check over these before adding to the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Railway_End_of_Edgeley_Park,_Stockport,_during_a_match_in_1994.jpg - Covered by CC BY-SA 2.0 License

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stockport_County_defend_against_Cheltenham_Town,_2011.jpg - This image is under the same license as the image above but commons doesn't seem to like it , would I be better uploading to Wikipedia directly (like the image above) or not at all? EDIT- Original flickr link - https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurencehorton/5698885611/in/photostream/, on the page if you click on some rights reserved it takes you to this page https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Wharton_c1896.jpg - Not uploaded by myself - But may use this image in the Stockport county article as the person pictured did play for the team in 1901. This image is tagged as public domain PD-1923 and Anonymous-EU EDIT - Images source shows getty images and here is the info from that site Date created: 01 January, 1896 Licence type: Rights-managed - https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula#RM Release info: Not released - https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/unreleased-imagery

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1910_Cheshire_ordnance_survey_map_showing_Edgeley_Park_(cropped).jpg - Ordnance survey map as mentioned above, hopefully I have tagged if correctly based on what was displayed on the website. This is the only image of the 4 I have added to the article. Wna247 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since your second image is deleted I can't see what about it Commons doesn't like - do you have the original Flickr link? Third one you'd need to be able to demonstrate it was published (not just created) before 1925. As above if the ordnance survey was published in 1910 it'd be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers @Nikkimaria: I have amended info on this page for picture 2 and 3 adding the flickr link/ links to further rights info the pages gives. Wna247 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NC-ND is not considered 'free' for the purposes of Wikimedia, so that'd be why the second image was deleted. See WP:COMPLIC. For the third, still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Worries thanks for clearing that up - As picture 2 has been deleted I won't re-upload it. I didn't upload picture 3 and have sent you all the information the source link contains so I cannot be sure when it was published (but again on the source website it says not published), that picture is used on that persons wiki page so I just wanted to run it by you before using it on another page. Picture 4 ordnance survey I have tagged as such and it was published in 1910 so that should be fine as you say. You haven't mentioned anything about picture 1 so I assume that is all ok.

Going back to my original images:

• File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg: the UK tag requires you to provide information about steps taken to ascertain authorship, and to know US status we need to know when/if this was published. If that can't be determined this would likely be considered non-free.
The image was published in the United Kingdom but the photographer and Image date is said to be unknown. But we can gather it was taken on or around 23 July 1935 as that’s when the fire was. And likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935 as that is when the local weekly newspaper was released in the United Kingdom. .– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date
Possibly "Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.

• File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg: based on the diagram this may be PD but needs different tagging for sure.
"PD-release"
"PD-US-unpublished"
"PD-anon-60-1996"
"PD-posthumous-50"
Any of these seem relevant as the image was published in the Stockport Advertiser Newspaper on 28 May 1937 in the United Kingdom. – According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.

• File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg: probably not PD in the US based on possible publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
"Non-free newspaper image" Can also include this tag for fair use and include a rationale.
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957, the Photographer listed as Stockport Express. It can be assumed then that this was published in the Stockport Express newspaper in the United Kingdom on or around that time.– According to Stockport Image and archives team, copyright expired after 50 years as shown in the flowchart I previous sent you. This image was not published in the United States on or after that date.

I can't find any more information of the United States publishing of these images if the archive team have told me that the Images were never published in the United States.

For the Wycliffe Church photo I have added a bit more information to the photos page but I could go and take a photo of it myself and upload it as own work if the information I have put onto the photo page is not enough.

Thanks, Wna247 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but again on the source website it says not published No, it says not released, which in this case appears to be a model release.
likely to be published in the local newspaper on 24 or 25 July 1935 Can this be confirmed?
This image was can be assumed published in late August 1957... copyright expired after 50 years In the UK. But 1957 + 50 would be after 1996 so likely still copyrighted in the US.
With regards to claiming images as non-free, keep in mind that you need a strong rationale for these, and the more non-free images you use the stronger the rationale for each needs to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Still unsure on how an image can be copyrighted in the United states, when it was never published or released in that country (which I have been told by the Stockport Images and archives team) when its Copyright has expired in the UK I would like to use the 1937 shield photo and/or the fire photo but would be happy to remove the team photo from 1957 due to the copyright. At the moment I can only speak to the archives team over email but will be able to visit the library and see the archive myself once they re-open - at that point I should be able to confirm that date of the newspaper publications in 1935 and 1937, but that might not be fore a couple of weeks yet. Can remove them from the article for now then add back in later once I can get all copyrights/publication dates etc. confirmed. If I can.

So the main Stockport county will have the following images in there after the next round of FAC edits:
File:Stockport County FC logo.svg - The clubs logo. Text is yellow on the website but blue on the sourced Document. Yellow is the official colour but the blue version is used on white backgrounds.
File:Wycliffe Congregational Church, Heaton Norris.jpg - I have given all the information I know on this image but I can now go and take a picture of this building myself and re upload. so then it will be tagged as my own work and therefore I'd give up rights to it via CC.
File:1910 Cheshire ordnance survey map showing Edgeley Park (cropped).jpg - Ordnance survey from 1910
File:Stockport County FC League Performance.svg - a version of this file is on most football clubs pages (differs depending on club of course) is tagged as an own work and updated yearly.
File:Stockport County Warm Up vs Cambridge.jpg - Is an Image I took at a match,is an own work and tagged as such.
File:Edgeley Park - geograph.org.uk - 763377.jpg - licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. with Attribution Dave Pickersgill
File:Stockport County fans.jpg - not uploaded by me but tagged as and own work under Commons and GNU Free Documentation License

I may later add to the article:
File:Dave_Jones.jpg - Uploaded via flickr via a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
- former manager of the club in the late 1990s (but this image is from 2010 when he was managing Cardiff City).
File:The Railway End of Edgeley Park, Stockport, during a match in 1994.jpg - Uploaded by me, similar to the Geograph.org image above This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License with Attribution
File:WillemIIManchesterUnited1963a (cropped).jpg - This is a picture of David Herd (who is mentioned in the main Stockport County article) scoring a goal later in his career for another club. - Original not uploaded by me but I have cropped it - Original is under the under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. This photo is a maybe, while it does show David Herd (a former Stockport player) in action its from a match between Manchester united and Dutch team Willem II.
I may also upload a photograph I took of a player at a pre-season match a few years ago and like the Warm Up vs Cambridge. will mark it as own work and tagged as commons.

If these are all ok I will go with these in the article and later add the 1937 shield photo and the fire photo if I can verify the copyright status with the library and archives team but as I said that might be a few weeks yet and don't want to delay the FAC of the article if it ends up coming down to image copyrights. A simple Yes or No for the above images will be fine. Wna247 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The church image is still pending the results of the deletion discussion at Commons. At a glance the others appear fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trobriand[edit]

You have removed a Wikidata template from Jean François Denis de Keredern de Trobriand, and I restored it only after adding another source to the Wikidata Q-Item. The source in question is a semi-official webpage of the École navale (the French naval academy). I would appreciate if you did not keep removing it without explaining clearly what it is you thing is lacking about these sources. I understand that you did not like the website from which the portrait comes from, but as it is you are refusing to believe any textual information from that website, while accepting that the portrait is indeed a portrait of the subject of the article, and that is just confusing. Rama (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rama, rootsweb is not a reliable source and we shouldn't be including information sourced to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are talking about. There was never any mention of rootsweb on this article. Rama (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, if you look at where the template data is coming from, most parameters are using rootsweb as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I have removed the rootsweb references from Wikidata, and there is now another source for the information. I hope that this works.
Also, as I said, the portrait comes from the web page hosted on rootsweb. Do you think we should remove it? Rama (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other sources that can confirm the identification? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of at the moment. Rama (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then unless that can be confirmed I would suggest not using it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Stop removing information as you did on Rhoda Montemayor. Or else you might get further blocked. DustEchos(DustEchos|talk) 12:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC) DustEchos (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DustEchos, since the subject of the article is a living person, there are special rules governing what kind of content should be included and what kind of sourcing is necessary to support that content. Self-published sources like open wikis, for example, cannot be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Antarctic Expedition[edit]

Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Cosson[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

Thank you for taking interest in my major project of whipping the Elizabeth Cosson article into shape (given the collection of dead links, outdated and incorrect information, and rather clunky writing it had). It is a mammoth task and even though I’ve been spending eight hours a night on it (it’s my second major project as a registered contributor [although I’ve been a guest contributor for some time now], after rewriting and improving Nursing Service Cross) there is still much work to do.

I would encourage you to please abide by WP:RVREASONS when making anything other than minor edits. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button. Because I don’t have any understanding of your reasons, and the removal wasn’t a minor edit, I’ve temporarily rolled back your changes for now.

As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit) [I’d prefer review is on the finished product as reasons for content may not be clear without looking at the whole]. But if you have time to explain your reasons for each individual removal, my metaphysical door is always open and my welcome mat is out. Thanks for taking the time to drop by for a lighting visit and I look forward to taking the time to talk together. Kangaresearch (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be responsible and follow WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. It’s important for all Wikipedians to adhere to WP:5P4. I draw your attention to the following [6]. I have rolled back your changes temporarily again until you follow Wikipedia policy and discuss them first as they are now clearly contentious. I have asked you to discuss in accordance with WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. ​Please discuss IAW WP:RVREASONS, WP:DR#Follow the normal protocol and WP:DR#Discuss with other party. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: As you are copywriting this article, can you review diff [7] for consistency of capitalisation on military ranks/titles re:Style Guide. Thanks. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the request belonged here, as the rest is an article topic, I’ll move it to the talk page so everything is together Kangaresearch (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) (Moved)Kangaresearch (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing some restraint (after getting a bit hot), and I am sorry if you felt changing the new subheading you added without any discussion was harmful to your feelings (I’m just trying to keep the open subsections in alphabetic order for ease of navigation, which changed when it became C after I). And while it appears you feel differently, the change of the title field in the info-box (remembering the info-box is only were I was up to when you dropped in) to lower case is the primary concern of case change - these should be uncontentious things in normal circumstances but I acknowledge your sensitivities. I am glad it didn’t devolve to the farce of earlier though, before we put a line under it (I mean subheadings on a talk page, not exactly the fields of Flanders). As mentioned let us try to be productive, after all, all activity is on the talk page now, not the article (which doesn’t progress us far). I feel like (now) I just get you in bad moments sometimes, as at times you can progress things along (like with the paypoint, even though it got pretty bogged there for a while), but at other times - not so much. I just wanted to let you know there is no urgency in these discussions - if it is not a good time, feel free to come back to it later. It doesn’t concern me much that you personally have these firm views, as long as you can express them as best as you can to me, fairly, so I have no ambiguity on them it is enough (you are always clear whether you want something one way or not, but not always in terms of why, except in generalised statements - and those are the ones I try to tease out a bit more, as sometimes you say something pivotal when that happens). As for myself, I don’t treat these conversations as battles to be won, but there are things I think need a little more, so anyone in the future can track why or why not things were done with some precision. I feel like, from very poor beginnings, we improved things in 48hrs (not an easy task) so that is worth protecting. Let us work in the interests of the article, because I know I was just about take a step rather reluctantly the other day, then suddenly saw a more measured tone and having just previously thought there is no way this will self-resolve, you changed my mind. It shows it is possible, and I appreciate you don’t normally spend time doing this (as normally you are focussing on copywriting, then moving to the next thing - not engaging in conversations), so I acknowledge the time you have provided (but as I said, if you want to take a moment, please feel free to do so - the article will still be there). Kangaresearch (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kangaresearch, to my knowledge no one has changed or suggested changing the rank capitalization in the infobox. If you want to have the open subsections in alphabetic order, please feel free to move that section somewhere else in the list - not because it is in any way "harmful to [my] feelings", but because the comments of mine you've placed in that section never had anything to do with the infobox so logging them under that heading is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say I apologise for any hurt feelings about apologising, but if you haven’t been upset over either, well then there is no need to apologise. I actually checked that, and my bad, I’m sure I saw that field in all lower caps, which caused the request (no wonder you were confused when I was talking about the rank as a stand-alone thing). Must be fuzzy eyes from all the talk page activity lol. Oh well, carry on McDuff - if it is outside the info-box, it is not that important (to me, right now). Can you title that whatever you want - mark it suspended - and drop to the end of the section. I’d do it myself, but if you want ownership of the title of a subheading, probably best you do it (then it is to your liking rather than my guessing, and you like things exactly so, so seems best).Kangaresearch (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don’t know if you will find this interesting or not, but was having a talk with Schazjmd, and well it interested me all this difference, so I asked and did a bit of searching to confirm, but the source of US custom, formally adopted by the US government and the armed service, is the Chicago Manual of Style which says capitalise [or in your locality, capitalize] when used in conjunction with a name otherwise lower case. It does give some context to the fork. Kangaresearch (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


WP:TPO & WP:OWNTALK disregard and repeated blanking of content without discussion, despite repeated request to do so[edit]

WP:OWNTALK "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user" WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection"

Re: Elizabeth Cosson Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. While "Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively... [the] fact that the disruption ... [may have occurred] in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia... [such as when] a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page... [by] a pattern of... tendentious... editing... that continues with impunity... [and] repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations... [and] repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits... [by engaging in] WP:DAPE."

Kangaresearch, you need to re-read WP:TPO, and while you're at it review WP:DRC. TPO specifically allows for users to remove comments from their own talk page at their discretion (with some limited exceptions that don't apply here). You posted the same message here and at the article talk page, and I'd prefer to discuss it at the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please abide by WP:5P4 - claiming someone needs to "re-read" something is overly aggressive and condescending, especially when you cannot specifically cite a point. While in some limited circumstances other editors comments may be removed, that does not include what you removed, which was drawing your attention to, and discussion of, your controversial blanking edits (made without discussion, despite being notified they were contentious and that request had been made for you to communicate on, before making further blanking edits [which you ignored]) - as per WP:OWNTALK & WP:UP#SUB a user’s talk page is for "messages from, and discussion with, other editors" about that editor’s editing activities (as distinct from collaborative discussion on an article, which you refuse to partake in, despite multiple requests to do so, making eight blanking edits that were known to you to be contentious, without any discussion, despite a request for you to do so after the first edit and only after eight edits engaged in any form of communication at all). However, if you specifically identify what exact parts of my edits on this page, and the reasons for anything to you wish to be edited by me (not a global vague claim that lacks precision, and prevents such consideration from taking place), I am happy to consider them for self-edit.
The Elizabeth Cosson talk page is for specific discussion about editors to discuss "changes [before they occur] to the Elizabeth Cosson article - it is not for discussing the conduct associated of with an editors edits or making remarks on editors (such as you did at 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)). I do consider, however, that while I have responded to certain off-topic remarks by you on the Elizabeth Cosson talk page, to give understanding at the place you first chose to communicate for the first time, they should be moved here to your talk page rather than the Elizabeth Cosson talk page (once you have edited your own off-topic comments [please refrain from making personal attributions] to make polite and considerate remarks about what you believe the article should or shouldn’t include, not the condescending personal ones you have inferred) so that which does belong on each talk page (which serve different distinct roles) goes there. It is unhelpful and contrary to purpose to combine them together on just one talk page, not to mention unhelpful to people actually doing real work. Kangaresearch (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kangaresearch, I am trying to assume good faith that you simply have misread the policies you're citing, but WP:OWNTALK specifically allows for users to "freely remove comments from their own talk pages", and you should not be re-restoring them multiple times - you can assume that removed comments have been read. I find your postings here and at the article talk page to be overly aggressive, unnecessarily focused on personalities rather than content, and not helpful for resolving the issues under dispute. I will respond to the substantive content matters at the article talk page and will also ask that you not post here again until you are prepared to meet the same behavioural standard you demand of others. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rm non-RS for Bill Burnett (writer)[edit]

Hello, I see that you removed part due to non-RS. I believe I found a RS to replace the non-RS: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453326/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv Is this RS? Is it OK for me to re-instate that part using this RS? --Dr.bobbs (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr.bobbs, no, IMDB is not generally considered reliable. In addition to that page there's an extensive list of common reliable and unreliable sources here that might be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable moments[edit]

Most of this edit, which you explained with a laconic "ce", removed quote fields from references.

I wrote a user essay where I suggest every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.

If you know of some guideline, or longstanding convention, that generally deprecates the use of quote fields, then could you please link to it for me?

If you don't think quote fields were generally deprecated, but you think my use of them lapses from some guideline, or longstanding convention, then could you please link to it for me?

In general, going forward, could you reserve the laconic edit summaries of "ce" for edits where the purpose, and justification, is actually obvious?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of quotes in citations has been discussed on many occasions, with use-cases such as offline sources, potentially contentious claims, or unparaphrasable material - none of which seem to apply here. In this case the quoted material actually exceeded the content of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, there are previous discussions you can point me to? Great, I look forward to you helping me find them with anticipation.
  • I know what a ucase is, but I don't know what a use-case is. You are the second person to use this strange term this month. Care to explain what this term means to you? Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have an article on that subject, but briefly, a use-case is a scenario in which a particular feature is appropriately deployed. The examples I mentioned above are ones in which this particular feature provides benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimple Kapadia[edit]

Hi there, since you've already an image review for the this nomination at FAC, may ask you to perform a source review as well? I'd really appreciate it, Shahid • Talk2me 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, going to leave that to someone else. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you anyway, Shahid • Talk2me 21:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O canada[edit]

My time is limited. Yet your [8] may do more harm than good without sufficient reason. Also note that unapproved alteration of national anthems may even be a crime in certain places, like Chinese Macao since 20 December 1999, though not Canada nor the USA.--Jusjih (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jusjih, if you believe that content does warrant inclusion I suggest making your case on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • Armenia report: Edit-a-thon dedicated to International Museum Day
  • Colombia report: A #1Lib1Ref to close the gender gap
  • Côte d'Ivoire report: #1Lib1Ref 2020 from 26 to 28 May in Côte d'Ivoire
  • France report: WikiArchives; IMD 2020: Cross-Chapter Collaboration
  • Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2020 recap; International Museum Day 2020
  • Italy report: New collaborations and contents!
  • Netherlands report: Analysis of Dutch GLAM-Wiki projects in relation to the Dutch Digital Heritage Reference Architecture, Content donation from Utrecht Archives, Detecting Wikipedia articles strongly based on single library collections and Collection highlights of the KB
  • Sweden report: Free music on Wikipedia; NHB webinars; Wikipedia in libraries – Projekt HBTQI
  • Switzerland report: International Museum Day 2020
  • UK report: Japanese art
  • USA report: Workshops & COVID-19 Symposium
  • Special story: Content partnership category - your help is needed
  • WMF GLAM report: GLAM metadata standards and Wikimedia projects
  • Calendar: June'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.

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020[edit]

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) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Marie Duggar[edit]

Hi can you please check the layout as I can't figure out what's wrong with it as it's the same as the other Duggar Family member pages. I had to add to the Jana Marie Duggar page that I made in 2018 as someone had edited it and took out the beginning. The page is also missing a picture of her and it won't let me insert it . Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Duggar

Thank you Wifey93 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Wifey93 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wifey93, what's the image you wanted to add? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add a picture of Jana but it give an error and it also is saying the page isn't valid but I thought I had fixed it Wifey93 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey93, is the picture on Wikimedia Commons? Can you share a link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will not add any of the first five pics https://www.google.com/search?q=jana+duggar&client=tablet-android-lenovo&prmd=niv&sxsrf=ALeKk02ryXAuCqSOMIUIxSVgSf-JsyGbxA:1592182609417&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj55-e2zoLqAhWgRzABHa95D4YQ_AUoAnoECBsQAg&biw=602&bih=964 Wifey93 (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey93, okay, so you can't embed an image that's hosted somewhere other than either here on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. If you can find an image that's freely licensed you'd be able to upload it; otherwise you can post a link to it using {{external media}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi also it's telling me the page isn't notable as it shows the too two messages on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Duggar Wifey93 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability tag was added by @Eagleash: who presumably has concerns about whether the subject meets our notability policy but they may be able to elaborate on their concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was added back in March 2019, when the page had no references and had already twice been reverted to a redirect. I note I also "Prod'd" the page as it had no references. I do not recall why I did not restore the redirect as a mention in the main article is really all that's necessary. "Reality" TV people are not typically considered notable and there are often issues such as 'fan' writing and poor quality sourcing. Eagleash (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny because I went through her other sibling pages and they are fine but not sure why this one came up as the notability.... I had to fix the page because it was missing the facts for the biography like where she lives, how old she is etc. I tried to add a different picture and it won't. It also reverts back to the Duggars family and Jim Bob Duggars page for some reason and I can't seem to fix that. Yet if you notice this page of her sibling works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinger_Duggar_Vuolo Wifey93 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also had to add info and references as the page was lacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Duggar

I don't notice this issue with the other sibling pages Wifey93 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki I can't figure out why there are issues with the page as her sister's page worked with no issues but Jana's page is saying it's not the right format. Here is her page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Duggar. I already had to make a new page for her a second time because Wikipedia didn't recognize the first page I made.

Her sister's page is working tho and they do connect them with all of the other siblings and parents

This is her sister's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy-Anna_Duggar_Forsyth Wifey93 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it's saying it's not the right format, are you talking about the tags at the top of the page, or something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Trainor is at FAC[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, you had helped me with this article's sourcing a while back. Wanted to point out that I have gone ahead with its FAC nomination. Since you are renowned for this, I would be immensely glad if you could provide a source review. Thanks.--NØ 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Twinkle error[edit]

Your edit to Robert H. Locke mentioned Wikidata already being linked in the sidebar. However, I'm not seeing any such sidebar or link after your edit (I'm checking using a vanilla Firefox browser in desktop mode). Is this an error in your Javascript, or are you planning to add a sidebar? -Vandraedha (talk|contribs) 03:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vandraedha, it's part of the default interface and doesn't need to be added separately. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it on the default interface, even when I use the search function in my browser. Can you please elaborate as to the location I should be looking for this information? -Vandraedha (talk|contribs) 09:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In File:Wikipedia_Sidebar.png there is a link titled "Wikidata item" appearing second from last in the Tools section. (Depending on what scripts or gadgets you have enabled there may be more entries in that section). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

The Minute Man
Thank you for your assistance with getting The Minute Man to featured article status. I could not have done it without your help. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Rock's Backpages access.
Message added 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Bruce1eetalk 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle FAC[edit]

Good evening! Just looking to see if you have any more feedback for the Space Shuttle FAC. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC mentoring request[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering submitting Cymmer Colliery explosion as FAC and saw you listed at WP:FAM. I'm a first-time FA nominator and would appreciate your guidance if you had the time/interest. Even if you were not able to mentor, a peer review or any feedback on the article would be very welcome please. In particular, the last section of the article uses bullet points – are these a definite no in a FA level article? My experience is in more technical writing where they are common. In this case, their use avoids the seemingly unnecessary inclusion of padding words to make each point a paragraph as well as the repetition of the same citation for each of those paragraphs. (Full disclosure: I made a similar request to another editor listed at WP:FAM a week ago but have not heard back.) Cheers  ~ RLO1729💬 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a more detailed look this weekend, but a quick response: bullet points aren't prohibited, but in this case I think it would be possible to reformulate the section into two paragraphs - one on this particular mine and one on safety/industry changes generally. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good suggestion, I'll see what I can do.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive comments on the article. Please let me know if any items need further attention.  ~ RLO1729💬 23:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, supplementary comments addressed.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article need further work or is it ready for FA nomination?  ~ RLO1729💬 15:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After I nominated the article a bot removed the FAC template from the talk page with the edit summary "Removing unfinished candidacy from talk page" (see diff). Should it have done this?  ~ RLO1729💬 00:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RLO1729, it's likely just because there was a time gap between adding the template to the talk page and adding the candidacy to the FAC page - if you restore it it shouldn't get removed again. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't allow much time then, page histories show talk page template added 10:11, FAC candidacy 10:16. (Not sure why the nomination has 00:11 rather than 10:11, possibly my local UTC time difference but this doesn't normally occur on my Wikipedia edits).  ~ RLO1729💬 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the gap between 18:29 and 19:16, rather than the creation of the subpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC has been archived in the middle of my ongoing discussion with Gog the Mild. I have messaged the editor at User talk:Ealdgyth#Archiving Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC and would appreciate your thoughts/input. IMO, this lack of careful consideration is one of the reasons editors leave Wikipedia.  ~ RLO1729💬 19:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise not being hasty on that front! I'd suggest the input you really need in that discussion is Gog's rather than mine, since it was his suggestion to withdraw that triggered the rapid archiving. If he believes your changes are sufficient to withdraw his withdrawal recommendation that would go a long way. (And if he doesn't, hopefully he's willing to engage on the article's talk page to elaborate his remaining concerns). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RLO, I will lend a hand when I am not typing from a hotspot on phone, but for now, archival is often the fastest route to promotion, so please do not be discouraged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany ethnic groups[edit]

What made you revert my contribution to the Germany page? It was a very helpful information. Davidjimnez (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidjimnez, you had proposed your change on the talk page beforehand, and did not get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I don't think you ask consensus for every time you edit a page... Davidjimnez (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is to make an edit and see if anyone reverts you. Which in this case, I have. The end result is the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imani Perry[edit]

Would you please explain why you deleted parts of the article on Imani Perry? 89.103.125.162 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the content lacked reliable sourcing - see WP:BLP. 12:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

3RR[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, you've made three reverts to my two. If you'd like to propose changing the existing citation style, you'll need to get consensus for that first. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should have stopped after my first revert per WP:BRD: in that case I would have had 100% of the reverts, and you 0% (instead of the current 60%/40% rate). There is no unambiguous right to "re-revert" after you have been reverted, but there is an obligation to discuss whatever revert I made in good faith. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is an essay, not an obligation. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "BRD is an essay, not an obligation" – apart from having heard that excuse far too often from inveterate edit-warriors, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is the relevant policy, e.g. "... the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation." – afaics you were combating me into capitulation – instead of going to the talk page and explain your case (as the WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy would have it), which you only did after having conclusively undone all my reverts (destroying content of references multiple times in the process – which seems to suggest you don't care too much about the WP:V policy either). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review request[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for the random message. I was wondering if you could do an image review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave that one to someone else - see it's already been posted at WT:FAC as needing review. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very quick response. I hope you are staying safe and healthy. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I just wanted to apologize for the above request, because for whatever reason, I completely forgot that you had already done an image review for the FAC earlier last month. I should have look back at the FAC more thoroughly. Anyway, just wanted to apologize for that as I appreciate that the time/energy you took for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L'incoronazione di Poppea[edit]

I recognize your reversion of my addition of an infobox is due to its delicate history and previous discussions on the talk page, albeit from 7 years ago. However, I really don't care if it has one or not, what I do care about is that for the soon to be nominated featured topic, all of the Monteverdi Operas use the same infobox, whether it be this template, the current "Identibox" on L'incoronazione di Poppea or the one that I inserted. At the moment the latter is present in every Monteverdi Opera except L'incoronazione di Poppea and there is quite literally no reason for this one to be different than the others. How can I go about standardizing them? Should I bring up a vote on the Opera project page between using this template, the current "Identibox" or the current infobox used on the other pages? I don't mean to dredge up old conflicts but frankly, it is pointless and meaningless for the articles to be formatted differently in this respect. Best - Aza24 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored most of that infobox. The "trial period" is over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... which was reverted, as expected, not by NM, also as expected --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a six-year status quo, so why you thought you could sneak it in without the discussion the note called for, I just don't know. And I don't particularly like you trying to use Brian's name as a tool for moral blackmail to add something to an article that he was sick and tired about. It's extremely distasteful of you. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, and now I see that your edit has included the reverting of my changes in referencing. I don't even know why you bother? Every other Monteverdi Opera article is referenced in this manner and while not required for a featured topic, consistency is important. I don't understand why you felt the need to step in, do you want me to get a consensus for a different referencing style on the talk page? If so then I will probably end up getting one and in the end wasting everyone's time... Why is it so important to you that the article uses a certain referencing style? The present style has no reason to be used while the one I implemented does as it directly reflect that of the other opera articles. Needlessly frustrating to say the least. - Aza24 (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 and Gerda Arendt, if your intent is to honour Brian, I don't see a good rationale to undo his work. The Featured Topic criteria do not require that the articles be standardized in the ways you propose, and our guidelines explicitly allow for article-by-article variation on both points. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't argue criteria and standardization. Brian, if around, would probably not object to project opera's recommendation for the normal operatic infobox - which is concise - nor to advanced referencing style. The infobox for L'Orfeo was proposed on the talk in 2015 and found no objection, not from Brian nor anybody else. Neither infobox nor (internal) references show his personal writing style, so "his work" is not touched by changes there. Compare the discussions for his last article, where even some slight changes of the prose found consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting his work can never be altered, but there would need to be a better rationale than that presented by the OP. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, Please read WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." There was an Arb case on this very point back in 2006, and the practice has held since then. I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page or any other form of consensus, and the reason you have given above seems to fall squarely into the examples of why not to change. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

 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 14 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

FAC mentorship?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I'm considering making my first FAC nomination, and I want to ask if you would be willing to mentor me in preparation for that process. The article I want to nominate is Honey Davenport. Would you be interested in taking a look? Thanks, Armadillopteryxtalk 07:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Just a heads up, I have withdrawn the nomination for Everything I Wanted because some reviewers recommended a copyedit and peer review. I will put up a new nomination in a few weeks after both the copyedit and peer review are done, so I hope to see you there! Thanks a lot! DarklyShadows (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Louise Day[edit]

I wrote a Wikipedia article on Mary Louise Day, a young teenaged girl who disappeared from her home in CA in 1981. She remained missing for 22 years until ultimately being found alive and safe. I’ve noticed two notes on the top of the page regarding the article tone and the sources. I’ve used all possible sources that reflect the information in the article and I’ve tried to the best of my ability to fix any errors that go against the Wikipedia tone. Can someone please help me, I’d hate to see the article be removed. Strangemysteries2004 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Strangemysteries2004, I'm not proposing deleting the article, but it does need some work in terms of encyclopedic tone - for example, "Some detectives remain doubtful about the outcome but many believe Mary Day can finally Rest In Peace". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you!!! I’ll rewrite that and whatever else sounds like that Strangemysteries2004 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Ware[edit]

Hi, hope all is well! Could I use an image from this book in Fabian Ware’s article uploaded to enwiki under {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} or am I missing something? Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given the publication date that makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 105[edit]

As far as I know, for wiki-historic reasons BWV 105 is the only cantata without template (I think Gerda was involved in an infobox arbcom case so, as a result, there was no obligation to have any infobox). I added the missing template using the same method as BWV 140, knowing that the libretto was anonymous. It is listed as so in the book of Dürr & Jones. As you can check I created the images of the manuscripts on the Bach archive: and in 2008 I started and created most of the article for BWV 105. The fact that the libretto is anonymous is recorded in Dürr & Jones. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The images for the soprano and tenor arias were created from the Bach archive in around 2011 and replaced by higher resolution images in 2016. Mathsci (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, I'm not disputing that the librettist is unknown. But since it's unknown that parameter doesn't need to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, nor am I sure that it really matters. It's true that Dürr & Jones and Whittaker explicitly mention "anonymous librettist"; and there are other examples of the use of the parameter apart from BWV 105 and 140, e.g. BWV 166. Mathsci (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not sure it really matters, why revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a colloquial term of phrase. In the mean time, I have acquired a 2nd hand 1978 reprint of Whittaker's book (currently not available in libraries because of coronavirus). Mathsci (talk)

This Month in GLAM: June 2020[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

2005 AHS[edit]

It has become clear during the FAR that the project and I have different ideas over the way the season should be laid out, as a result, I have recused myself from the review.Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020[edit]

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) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for Infobox[edit]

Please explain your changes. They new infobox lacks information, and all the information from wikidata is backed up with reliable sources Germartin1 (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germartin1 , sources like Freebase and IMDb do not meet our standards, particularly since this is a biography of a living person. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, first of all it has references from the Indonesian government see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12501035, that can be reliable, so just pasting it in a normal infobox is the better alternative?? Germartin1 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is that the sources that aren't the Indonesian government site are not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell which of the following: birth place/date, occupation, and member of political party is not reliable Germartin1 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable" is in reference to our page on reliable sources; as mentioned above, sources like Freebase and IMDb are not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as mentioned above, the references are not from Freebase or Imdb Germartin1 (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those references are used for these details in the Wikidata item, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source-material dispute at album article[edit]

Hi. I found your name in the edit history for the Lemonade (Beyonce) article. Given your experience, if you're interested in issues of sourcing, perhaps you can chime in on such a discussion --> Talk:Lemonade_(Beyoncé_album)#Possible_OR/POV_violation. isento (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Buskieboy (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buskieboy, the relevant guidance is at WP:EL - what specific benefit do you feel is provided by the link? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for catching my error at the Unconstitutional constitutional amendment article. I meant to cite this link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2649816 but for some reason accidentally ended up citing the "Besse Cooper" Gerontology Wiki article instead (which I was simultaneously looking at as I was writing this article). Anyway, I have now put the correct source into this article. Futurist110 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Edits on - Nighthawks_(painting) for Dead Like Me TV[edit]

Hi, Would like to understand what further I can provide to sufficiently confirm the edit? I watched the episode last night, and it was quite a thought provoking episode paying homage somewhat to the artists work. Due to a lack of 'reliable sourcing' available online, I wanted to contribute. Are you able to assist? Unsure how to reference video content which has limited reliable internet, text based references.


here is a video source: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6s6yyr

appropriate timecodes: 16:50 - lady in red appears 17:04 - lady in red sites with man in a booth 18:22 - artwork appears in book 18:40 - characters introduce artwork 19:45 - characters discuss the artwork 21:49 - lady in red talking with man in background in a booth 27:53 - lady in red with man in foreground in a booth 37:36 - lady in red talking with man outside of diner 41:14 - shot of diner, clear similarities

in fact, other Edward Hopper artworks featured with similar impressions and discussions throughout. 17:28 - Hotel Room, 1931 17:49 - New York Movie, 1939


as discussed on forum: https://filmboards.com/board/p/1150094/ has also been mentioned on a wikipedia banned website (peoplepill) on edward hopper

and is also mentioned on another wiki page, but felt odd to self reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hopper. "...Hopper's painting New York Movie was featured in the television show Dead Like Me; the girl standing in the corner resembles Daisy Adair." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.232.18 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, as per this discussion, sources should confirm not only that the reference exists (in this case, that the painting was featured in the show), but that that has significance for the subject of the article (the painting). I don't see that that exists in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, apologies if this doesnt indent well, this being my first foray into attempting contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you for referencing that discussion, some interesting points were raised. It does appear that the mere fact that the article (the painting, and others of Edward Hopper) appeared in the show, were homaged in the episode, discussed, had the episode title of 'Nighthawks', reflected upon and drew parallels to main characters in the story are not in of itself sufficient sources. There is also limited information from sources that Wikipedia deems as sufficient. This retraction of my edits seems largely unfair given the lack of sources for the "That '70s Show". I daresay blog posts and commentary therein, would be insufficient. Here is another source, unsure if you or wikipedia would deem this sufficient.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://dlm.hypnoweb.net/dead-like-me/les-dossiers/edward-hopper.56.249/&prev=search&pto=aue
On the topic of significance, this is highly subjective, while we may be unable to determine if this is scientifically or statistically significant in terms of calculations, the affect it has on a person can be significant, and in terms of the episode itself, it is significant as Hopper's works were able to present an avenue of reflection for the main characters in the eyes of the lead character. To me, this is more significant than a shot on The Simpsons, or an advertisement for Fresh Off The Boat.
Reviewing the discussion, it appears that there is also a general sentiment against "in pop culture" references. Of which was aptly referenced to this comic https://xkcd.com/446/ . I did think carefully before adding in the edit, ensuring to keep to the standards (as best i could) for the wiki page and Television shows referenced, given the lack of sources other than the source material itself. Reviewing now the important message at the top of the "In popular culture" section, it seems that this section of the page will be subject to some further edits.
I hope that this discussion of ours will help to change your mind on my Wikipedia page edit (my first), or result in further review of this pages populate culture section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.232.18 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, you're welcome to bring the matter to the article's talk page to get the perspectives of other page-watchers. For my part, while I agree that it's unfortunate when sources aren't available to support what we might want to add, I still don't think the sourcing is here, and would agree with you that some of the other mentions probably warrant removal. What about adding a discussion about the painting to one of the articles related to the show? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing[edit]

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020[edit]

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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions[edit]

I know you could pick up your adminship at any time you choose to, but I respect your decision to refrain. Nevertheless, would it make your editing easier if you had permissions like template editor or page mover, etc? I'd be more than happy to grant you any of the unbundled permissions if you ever thought you might find them useful. Regards --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SURVIVEDBY[edit]

Hello, might Elizabeth Throsby's family form one of those "unusual" cases "worth highlighting" per MOS:SURVIVEDBY? I included it because of the sheer number of them, unusual even for that time. She was the only survivor of the massacre to go on to have children, and by the time of her death, she had produced a family that outnumbered those who perished. I think these are extraordinary stats. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing discussion of her children is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

breaking citation templates[edit]

When changing |publisher= to |newspaper= or |magazine= as you did in this edit, a good thing, please make sure that there are no lingering aliases of these parameters in the template (as seen here and here) so that others don't have to cleanup after you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous image review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. If I were to renominate The Masked Singer (American TV series) for featured article status, would your image review on the first archive still count, and can it be mentioned in the description? I haven't added/edited any images since your review. Heartfox (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox, I would expect so, but that would be up to the coordinators to decide. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox in Buckingham Palace[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Why did you delete it? --Jbaranao (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jbaranao, see the previous discussion on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2020[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Significance of song about Dick Turpin[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your query as to the significance of the addition I made to the Dick Turpin page. To me it is a point of interest relating to the appearance in popular culture, through folk music, of the character of Dick Turpin, perhaps especially because the song seeks to portray him as he really was, rather than the romanticised version of him as a dashing hero. When compared with the other items in the Legacy section, the fact that a song has been written doesn't seem any less significant to me than the other entries. Of course I see that a play or a film is a larger work, but the song is still a representation in the arts, and therein lies the significance. (The fact that the song was played in the Royal Albert Hall is perhaps not especially significant, and the only real reason I included that was because I had a reference to it.) Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. Muonmo (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muonmo, I would be more inclined to support removing other potentially not-especially-significant entries there than I would to add more. Do you have additional sourcing regarding this entry? The one provided is not particularly reliable, nor does it meet the parameters outlined in this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't have another source at this stage. But perhaps I could ask you - as it would help me to understand the issue better more broadly, and not just as it pertains to this page - whether the existence of a more robust source somehow confers the requisite significance? Thanks again. Muonmo (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per the RfC linked above, for inclusion of "in popular culture" elements, the expectation is secondary sourcing that indicates the significance of the element to the subject. The source previously provided supports that the song exists, but not more than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japan_portuguese presence[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

Please consider that the presence of the first contact with the west is crucial for what happens afterwards in japan from the consolidation of kingdoms and the subsequent expansion of the japanese abroad (korea etc) I understand that some of the paragraphs may go on to another article such as the history of Japan, but this information is succinct information of the presence of a century of the Portuguese in Japan, where both civilizations suffered linguistic influences, in art and knowledge.

As for the map, please consider complementary information, being framed in the context of contact with the outside. I didn't understand the principle of Good Faith, do you need more references from the author of the map? Thank you --Hugo Refachinho (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I simply don't agree that that level of detail is appropriate for a summary-style article. Many things have been influential on the history of Japan, and there's not room there to devote multiple paragraphs and images to all of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Library Card[edit]

Thank you for all the work you've done on the Wikipedia Library project. I've just begun to collect sources to improve and expand the Fanny Lou Hamer article. I am amazed at the number of articles available from JSTORE that should be helpful.

At first I could not find a way to use the 'Workspace' tool without a unique identifier. I thought about asking you, but then chose to use the support link within JSTORE. Sent the request at noon, got the correct answer within an hour! — just sign up for an individual free account anD the JSTOR platform will link the wikipedia account with the free account and allow persistent 'Workspace' collections — I am very happy. — Neonorange (Phil) 20:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability question[edit]

Nikkimaria, I hope you're doing well. I had a question about this blog entry and if it's reliable. Normally I wouldn't dismiss it without hesitation but in this case the author/owner of the blog is a well respected musicologist (professor at University of Oxford as well) so I was wondering if it is still usable because of that. If not it's not a huge deal since the blog itself links to plenty of sources that are reliable/published. Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, the applicable guidance is WP:SPS - in this case I'd expect the author would qualify as a subject-matter expert. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duke_Friedrich_of_Württemberg[edit]

I saw that you deleted some text and unreliable sources. However, the funeral is evidenced by other, reliable sources. You "threw the baby out with the bathwater".May I please put the text and RS back? Bearian (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, if you have RS to support the text, by all means use that instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are Alamy or eurohistoryjournal.blogspot.com reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Or mogaznews.com? Bearian (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alamy sure, depending on what content it has. The eurohistory blog, on a quick look I'd say not unless the authors qualify as expert per SPS. The last, again, on a quick look I'd say not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Butler, 11th Earl of Ormond[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria. My apologies. I had somehow overlooked your first edit where you removed the external link (EL) to The Peerage website and the Appendices heading. I did not mean to enter into an edit war with you. I still consider myself a novice and am on a seemingly endless learning curve, especially with regard to the knowledge and understanding of the MOS. I see you are an FAR coordinator and have more than 140,000 edits.

With regard to the EL. The Peerage is a self-published website but usually reliable. It is often cited in biographies of British aristocrats. It cites sources and so I try to replace it by a citation from the relevant source given in it and (until now) moved the reference to EL as I try not to entirely supersede what other Wikipedians have done. I found the link to The Peerage in the EL useful to check facts against it. However, as you insist on deletion, I will take your word as a really eminent, experienced and influential Wikipedian. The great majority of the articles on my watchlist have this EL. I will remove them as I crawl around my watchlist for other improvements, otherwise you can certainly make a pass through my contributions and remove this EL everywhere, earning about a hundred edits in the process. But if you prefer and find it urgent, I will go through my watchlist and do it ASAP.

With regard to the heading "Appendices". I found that the headings from the appendices often take too much importance in the table of context. By introducing Appendices as a 2nd-level heading and demoting the various appendices to the 3rd-level I wanted to help readers. I see now that MOS:LAYOUT insists that the standard appendix headings must be 2nd level. So I must comply. I learned a lot from you. Please accept, dear Nikkimaria, the expression of my highest consideration, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade, thanks for your comments. With regards to The Peerage, there are some discussions linked from its entry at WP:RSP that elaborate on why it's not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nikkimaria. Thanks again, I have read up. The Peerage should be replaced by its sources for citation. I would have thought it OK for EL though, but I trust your judgement and will delete it from articles where I added it. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September Women in Red edithons[edit]

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Consuelo Vanderbilt[edit]

Hi!! Please notice that I have undone your undoing of my edit on the Wikipedia article about Consuelo Vanderbilt Balsan, as I think that my edit and the new information about the life and character of Mrs.Balsan found therein was well-founded and I brought citations enough! Don't you believe that it is not educationally accurate that an entire article should be almost drawn by the work of one person (a Mr.Stuart)? In any case, would you please take some time and read the Daily Mail article I cited on the bibliography? It was rather illuminating. Happy Days! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeofCleveland (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DukeofCleveland, as per WP:DAILYMAIL the current consensus is that that source is not reliable. You'll need to find different sourcing to support the changes you want to make. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September[edit]

September
Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you the image review!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 40[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Pepy I at FAC[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, would you please consider doing an image review for the article Pepi I Meryre, which is currently at FAC ? The article has been posted there a while ago and as received only one text review so far, so I am worried about it failing for want of reviews, in particular image and source ones. Thank you.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020[edit]

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) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • Albania report: Wikivoyage edit-a-thon - Editing Albania and Kosovo’s travel destinations
  • Brazil report: Open innovation and dissemination activities: wrapping up great achievements on a major GLAM in Brazil
  • Czech Republic report: First Prague Wiki Editathon held in Prague
  • Estonia report: Virtual exhibition about Polish-Estonian relations. Rephotography and cultural heritage
  • Germany report: KulTour in Swabia and 8000 documents new online
  • India report: Utilising Occasion for Content donation: A story
  • Netherlands report: WMIN & WMNL collaboration & Japanese propaganda films
  • Serbia report: Enriching Wiki projects in different ways
  • Sweden report: Free music and new recordings of songs in the public domain; Autumn in the libraries; Yes, you can hack the heritage this year – online!
  • Uganda report: Participating in the African Librarians Week (24-30 May 2020)
  • UK report: Spanish metal and ...
  • USA report: Wiknic & Black Artists Matter & Respect Her Crank
  • WMF GLAM report: Wikipedia Library, new WikiCite grant programs, and GLAM office hours
  • Calendar: September'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.

Bill Fagerbakke[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria, is there by any chance you could restore Fagerbakke's "Personal life" section back in the article again? because I've been constantly requesting it in the talk page to be restored back in the article again. But no matter how many sources I keep on providing to help restore it, they still won't add it back. I was just curious if you could restore it back? If that's ok? I've been trying hard to provided the best sources I could, but they still won't count, as I've been told. 2600:1000:B046:332A:9843:9F32:493E:74 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, are you talking about this sentence, or something else? Just wanted to clarify because that content wasn't in the infobox. Also, it looks like the first of the two sources in your most recent request on talk is a dead link - do you have a replacement? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there were some other ones I found, but I've been having trouble trying to show them on the talk page. whenever I tried to post it, I keep getting this message saying that it's been disallowed. So I don't know what other replacment source I could find, because those were the only best ones I can find for now. Until you told me it's a dead link.

P.S. I actually ment to say "article" not "infobox", I just made a mistaje in my typing. And yes, I do mean that same sentance as before. But does the Hollywood Reporter count? Here:https://www.hollywood.com/general/actor-bill-fagerbakke-splits-from-wife-59442806/ 2600:1000:B051:E1A8:C435:632A:39C8:C30C (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great link because its source is TMZ, which often publishes rumours. Given that the subject is a living person we generally need stronger sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Filmreference.com"? Because that one actually shows his info of his marriage to her and his two daughters. The problem is, I can't share the link here because it won't allow me to post it. That source is currently used as the source for his date of birth in the article. 2600:1000:B06D:53A0:5DF9:6786:3966:5D9C (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that that source names his wife, but it doesn't appear to discuss the divorce information that you're wanting to add? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.9.108 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP, your change has been disputed, and you've restored it twice. Please take it to the template's talk page to explain your rationale and discuss. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Milk Hotel Wiki[edit]

You reverted my external link on Neutral Milk Hotel and wrote "See WP:ELNO," but after reading I fail to see why the link is not valid. It certainly gives more information about the band than what is written on the Wikipedia page. TheThingy Talk 02:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open wiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springer Nature Journals—able to fully access all but Scientific American[edit]

Nikkimaria, thank you very much for forwarding my application for access to Springer Nature journals. I seem to have easy access to all articles in all publications save one—Scientific American—also listed under "Nature Research journals" at the Springer Nature website'.

As it happens, I am discussing a rewrite of the lede for Anthropic Principle with another editor who wishes to simplify the lead. I believe our views mesh, but I wish to be carful to avoid compromising accuracy. I am familiar with Scientific American—it would be a great resource for improving ledes.

Scientific American has published dozens of articles related to the 'anthropic principle. I'd like to get clues from these articles to help express a competent summary in the lede.

I can not find an appropriate link at Springer Nature to ask for assistance. Am I missing something? I may be able to get access through my local library—closed now by the pandemic. Do you have any suggestions? — Neonorange (Phil) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neonorange, looks like because that resource has a different base URL to the rest of the journals, it's not getting picked up properly by the proxy. I've reported that on Phabricator. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! If you ever need unskilled help at the Library Card, please call on me. — Neonorange (Phil) 22:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Tanaka[edit]

In your opinion, is it ok to keep "fourth oldest person ever" without a reliable source? The "editor" with the IP address 141 126 101 68 has added this on many occasions and it has been reverted by myself and others as many times. MattSucci (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an interim step you could tag it {{citation needed}}, but if no source is forthcoming it should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ref in Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Hi, the article cites "Adams 2010" but there is no such reference in the bibliography. Can you please add? Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renata , I do not know what source was intended there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article mistake[edit]

Is there by any chance you coukd respond to this talk page request I made here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Angelis#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_September_2020_2, because there's a mistake in the article I wantee to be fixed so badley abd it still hasn't been corrected yet. 2600:1000:B033:2B98:94F3:F07E:BD35:DC86 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baden-Powell grave[edit]

Would you please care to tell us where you are reverting the find a grave links on Baden-Powell grave. --Bduke (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is being discussed on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That makes it clear. --Bduke (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Japan climate change[edit]

Hey I saw you removed climate change from the Japan article. I added it again as it is quite an important subject and just explains a bit about how climate change affects japan and the goals of the government. Finn.reports (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finn.reports, please don't do that - the topic is already covered in the Environment section. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is barely anything about climate change. I just think that it is important to add climate change and talk about the goals of the japanese government and the effects of climate change in japan. It is a pretty important topic as it has big effects on japanFinn.reports (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not covered in the environment section. It doesn’t say anything about the goals of the Japanese government concerning climate change and what the effects are for japan. So a little section for climate change is needed as it is an pretty important subject for japan and any other country. Finn.reports (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not really covered in the environment section. There is nothing about the goals of the Japanese government or the effects of climate change in japan. It is an pretty important subject so I don’t get why it can’t be added to the page. Finn.reports (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[]],[[]] or ,[edit]

Hey, thanks for your copyedit at the BBQ page--but I always had the impression that the "proper" way was the other way around. What's the relevant MOS guideline on this? Thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingoflettuce, you're talking about this edit? The relevant guideline is MOS:SEAOFBLUE - see this recent discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks a lot. Makes sense but gee, never knew till now! That actually saves me the effort 😆 Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert someone who was welcomed just a few days ago, could you perhaps supply a bit more of an edit summary than "per talk". I remember that in the beginning, I didn't even know that articles have talk pages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Grace[edit]

Why did you remove my Hubert Laws contribution to "Amazing Grace" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyScholar (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ScottyScholar, many many many people have recorded some rendition of that song, so we can't include every single one of them in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Change[edit]

You deleted cause of death here. For whatever reason. The page had been somewhat improved by me because I came over from the list of prominent Covid deaths that exists. There the person got an entry, so is notable. Did a good job, bad job? I'm not sure what to say, honestly I don't think you did. Fix it. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.62 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, please see the template documentation regarding the appropriate use of that parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had, after all I added the Infobox. Template:Infobox_person/doc#Blank_template_with_all_parameters, service for you:
death_cause = < should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability >
Mr. Mwalwanda is on the List of deaths due to COVID-19, had been servant (UN and state) and economist, but no high-ranking politician or businessman. The entry 'death_cause' is relevant inasmuch as his life was cut short because of Covid, it had a significant impact. Quite some people listed actually got articles in WP for that fact. How to measure 'notability' objectively? Usually not so many doctors, state servants, teachers, care takers etc., even actors, artists, influencers get included. I'm alright with it, doesn't hurt anybody. Probably an expression of Zeitgeist that we add them now. ppl might want to read about them to remember this tragic event, so they may become notable to us (literally, we notice them) first and foremost for having perished in this pandemic, sadly.
Whatever, this data entry you deleted is practical, to compile infos/listings e.g. of those deceased thanks to that nasty bugger. I do understand the point, others like to include religion, marriages a.o., sth I myself consider rather kept in the article as personal info. One can argue it is irrelevant to have 'death_cause' in infoboxes, but the entry is to be read automated by a script, the data value is caught. In that particular case (roughly 1 mill confirmed perished already) it may not be so smart to purge it. The info might or might not be included in meta data too. But you do not want to parse whole text for e.g. 'died', 'covid', 'infection', if it can be avoided. Is where defined data entries shine. My intention is to better keep a redundancy. Consider this.
To set things straight − I am not angry or whatever, far from it, but I'm still wondering what you do such deletions for. Nonetheless I assume good faith, greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.74.190 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, if your primary concern is completeness of data for automated scraping, I would suggest using Wikidata instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is a source with photographs of a person's grave stone not a reliable source[edit]

NantucketHistory (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NantucketHistory, see the explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for sharing that link. I also see this there: "A grave stone is a reliable PRIMARY source for saying what the text that appears carved on the stone is. As with all primary sources, I would be cautious about using it for anything else" -- I am citing the date of birth and date of death, which are on the gravestone -- ??? NantucketHistory (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NantucketHistory, I've added a better source for this information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really great source! It has more information not contained within the article. Thank you for finding this Nikkimaria. NantucketHistory (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help, problematic images at Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold[edit]

Three images were downloaded onto Commons and used in the article this past June, the source being http://www.acolumbinesite.com/. I went looking into the sourcing for the one with Brooks Brown but now I think all of them are lacking the proper permissions and the permissions seem...well, to not be quite right. AColumbineSite's FAQ states

• Can I use photographs from your website for my school report/documentary/news production/etc.
Yes, you can, provided your work is NOT for profit. As far as I'm aware, everything here is public domain

But then the editor who uploaded the photos onto Commons claims that

I nominated the Brooks Brown photo for deletion because of the permission issues but am now thinking that all three should be nominated to go...but am I wrong on this? Anyway, would appreciate someone with more expertise - such as yourself - to look into the situation. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shearonink, it would depend on what basis that FAQ claims everything is public domain. If those credited authors really did release the images then it'd be fine, but we'd need some proof of that - at the moment we don't have it. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So should I nom all three for deletion? The individual claims of permission seem to be made up out of whole cloth... Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nommed the other two. No responses at any of the three, including the Brooks Brown image... Shearonink (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA Biblioteca Marciana[edit]

Nikkimaria, Hello, the Biblioteca Marciana was promoted at FA, and I want to thank you for all of your time in reviewing the images and helping me to resolve the problems. Kind regards, Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and congrats on the FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenner's Relationships[edit]

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I'm learning how to contribute to Wikipedia and appreciate your guidance on my contributions to the article of Jenner. Would just like some of your help on how I could better improve some things I did say, because I believe adding information about Jenner's relationships are important to the article and notable about her life. Thanks, Emilywillingham (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emilywillingham, I'd suggest having a read of our policy on biographies of living people, particularly the section on sourcing. We really want to avoid having material in these articles with questionable or tabloid sources. (I will mention that there are other parts of the article that unfortunately don't meet that standard at this point, it's not just your contribution that is concerning). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Earhart[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that you've been removing my content from Amelia Earhart's "in popular culture" section, citing "unreliable sources". I can understand how the Wikia source could be seen as unreliable but how was my IMDb source unreliable? I'm not a veteran editor by any means so, if you can explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I'll take your word for it and drop it. DaveA2424 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaveA2424, take a look at WP:RS/IMDB and this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okiedokie, I accept that. It sucks though that it's such a hassle to add content to a page. Every word you write has to be sourced, but only certain kinds of source are allowed. Like, in my situation, it's frustrating because I've literally played the video game I'm talking about so I know my information to be true but I can't add it because of this reason or that reason. But I digress. Have a nice day. DaveA2424 (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would a link to a YouTube video literally showing the quote be considered a reliable source? I'm really not sure how much more valid it can get than that. DaveA2424 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DaveA2424, that would be a primary source, and in the context of "in popular culture" entries, current consensus is that that is not sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've re-added the content that you removed but with what I believe to be a more reliable source that isn't from a wiki or IMDb and isn't a primary source. You can take a look and see if it's acceptable in your eyes. If not, I really don't understand this website. DaveA2424 (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wife selling[edit]

Hello. You have revert my edit. Thanks for the reminder. But, did you read the article or the reference that i type? Griffith reference is only one source and the journal was deleted on the source. The journal was also only book review of the book that i cited, so i think what i cite is more valid that the previous reference. I add the readable link also and it was the same book. May you reconsider your revert? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agus Damanik (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agus Damanik, it was the same book but not the same edition, meaning that all of the other references to that book would need to be changed as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • Brazil report: Wikidata birthday celebrations, Wiki Loves Monuments, new partnerships and more!
  • Colombia report: GLAM and virtual education
  • France report: AAF training course; Workshops in Strasbourg; European Heritage Days: Rennes; Wiki Loves Monuments
  • Germany report: Ahoy! Wikipedians set sail to document the reality of modern seafaring
  • Indonesia report: New GLAM partnerships on data donation; Commons structured data edit-a-thon
  • Norway report: Students taking on GLAM Wiki women in red
  • Sweden report: Musikverket: more folk music and photos; Hack for Heritage 2020; Wiki Loves Monuments; Wikipedia in the libraries; Digital Book Fair on Wikipedia
  • UK report: National Lottery; Khalili Collections
  • USA report: Virtual events MetFashion, 19SuffrageStories, WikiCari Festival and more
  • Open Access report: New publication about access to digitised cultural heritage
  • WMF GLAM report: Launching Wikisource Pagelist Widget
  • Calendar: ctober'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.

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your massive improvement of the problematic Disney family article. Theroadislong (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Hi. Why do my links to find a Grave keep getting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.241.109 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, because the links you are adding do not appear to provide a benefit. See WP:EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020[edit]

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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S.D. Richards[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, I recently saw your review of my FA nomination of Stephen Dee Richards and how it did not pass because of the issues you listed. I have addressed most of those issues as the following:

  • "The Old West's Ted Bundy" Bolding- Removed bold
  • "Kearney County Murderer" issues- Added source and name to infobox
  • "seeking his fortune" quote- Issue with minor copy-editing from GA reviewer fixed as it is not a quote
  • "Richards would become notorious by way of a posthumous biography" claim- Richards was notorious during the period he was still alive

Reworded statement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "about $19,855 as of 2020" - Most roundups of money as far as I have seen in FA articles are not sourced
  • If I saw those I would question them as well, as they should be sourced not only for verifiability but also to make clear how the conversion was being made. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of reference should I use to round up the money value?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did you use to create the given statement? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the original amount, I used the source provided. The adjusted amount was done through a website that adjusts money for inflation. Not sure I can cite it though.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a reliable site, you can. If it isn't, you probably shouldn't be using it in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of sites that might be reliable enough to cite. The best is In2013Dollars.com, which give a more accurate explanation of the adjusted money.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This would be the only confirmed photograph of Richards. " and Skull location - Very similar to Begotten canceled releases, this is a deliberately open-ended information
  • ... which still needs citing, otherwise it approaches being OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove it then.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short cites would benefit from being formatted for human readers- I am not sure what you mean...
  • Rather than using an abbreviated anchor like "NYTimes", it would be more appropriate to actually spell this out as "New York Times". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a more general point than that particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning it applies to all shortened cites right? And should I italicize all newspaper publications when sourcing them in sfn format--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, and I'd strongly suggest including the normal spacing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article relies quite heavily on contemporary newspaper accounts - do later sources corroborate their claims?- Richards is mostly forgotten and largely unreported in modern-day society, I should probably address that in the Legacy section
  • FN23: page?- Added page number
  • Be consistent in whether authors are presented first or last name first- I am not sure what you mean...
  • If you have a source authored by John Smith, you can present that citation as either "John Smith (year). Title" etc or "Smith, John (year). Title" etc. But you should pick one or the other and do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For articles without a byline, it isn't necessary to specify Anon.- Fixed
  • How are you ordering Sources?- Alphabetically by Last name, Anon's are done by date

Rearranged reference list to sort periodicals by date published.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the ordering of books is still not consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For multi-edition works be sure to include edition statement for version cited- Done

There are only 2 or 3 books that are multi-edition, fixed it to include editions.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books- Looking over the book citations I do not see any of them that list the location
  • Ramsland 2006: link provided gives a different publisher- Fixed citation

Finally corrected the problem--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copy editing- I am still looking for a good copy editor to help me out with that
  • File:Stephen D. Richards Hanging, Nebraska, 1879.jpg- It is in the commons as the template states on its page, buidhe overlooked that

--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama in Israel?[edit]

Hi, an image that I personally photographed in Israel is being questioned for copyright at Template:Did you know nominations/Hadassah (dancer). Are you familiar with copyright law in Israel for outdoor street art? Images of this and similar street art portraits are posted at Solomon Souza and Mahane Yehuda Market#Artwork. Thanks for any enlightenment you can provide. Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the relevant guideline (on Commons): COM:FOP Israel? Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yoninah, Israel does have freedom of panorama for 3D and "applied" 2D works, but not so far as I'm aware for artistic 2D works, unfortunately. There is a provision for fair use in Israeli copyright law, or since the artist in this case is known, perhaps there could be a release of some kind? (after ec) Yes, that's the applicable guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. The Mahane Yehuda Market is an outdoor public area, and the municipality arranged for this artwork as a public service. Won't this qualify for 2D works? If not, what do I have to do to get permission from the artist to freely license my pictures? Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the distinguishing factor for applied vs artistic is whether it has a functional purpose beyond being artwork - for example, if it were an ad for a particular store that would qualify, but this doesn't seem to be that?
When you say the municipality arranged for this artwork, do you mean they commissioned it? In that case they might hold copyright. If the copyright is still held by the artist, you'd need to get them to follow the process at WP:CONSENT (or the Commons equivalent). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Maid of Orleans (opera)[edit]

In The Maid of Orleans (opera), you replaced an image related to the opera by one showing the composer. Project opera promotes images related to the opera in the top position, and an image of the composer only if none is available. Consider self-reverting. If not, please explain, and restore the other image to the opera article where it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the other image is appropriately licensed for use, in either position. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
now I know, - can you please inlcude some hint, such as "license?" next time because my ability in mind-reading is limited? - GRuban, what do think about File:Jeanne d'Arc portrait.jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I think she is right. This says it is a photo of a 1986 Swedish poster, so will generally be copyrighted for 70 years after author's death, or if anonymous 70 years after publication, so 2056 at least. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Sweden has the details. She didn't nominate the image for deletion on Commons, but I think I should. Nikkimaria, if you have some reason it shouldn't be nominated for deletion on Commons, please do say, but otherwise I'm just going to assume it's "didn't get around to it", and will do the nomination. Though there is something to be said for explaining one's reasoning for removing the image in the edit comment, yes. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Party of America[edit]

I know HOI4 content is generally considered content unfit for Wikipedia as most people are not aware of the content of mods. However, Bill Hammons himself has acknowledged his prescence in Red World numerous times and is in contact with numerous mod devs. Therefore, I think this fits according to Wikipedia's policies on notoriety.

Thanks, 73.234.135.49 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - my initial objection was to the sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, It has been a while since I have talked about the article on Begotten. I Just want to let you know that I have been working with Brandt Luke Zorn to try and get it up to FA status before it is renominated. I was wondering if you could give me your assessment if you think it is ready for renomination?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look, there are still sources I would question should I be doing a source review of this at FAC. I would suggest you take a look through and consider what your response would be for each source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the sources, I did find some that might be considered questionable. I am going to list my response to each one here (If I missed any please let me know):

  • 'Muzzleland Press- This was highlighted as questionable during the first FA review. I will remove it. Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nightmare on Film Street (NOFSPodcast.com)-Semi-professional editorial, interviews, and film review site. It is rather difficult assessing this one as it might be self-published or maybe not.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • UltraCulture- Professional editorial/interview website run by author/journalist Justin Louv, who interviewed Merhige in 2015. The site is under a registered and copyrighted organization Ultraculture Incorporated. Looking into it, I found more information on Louv, specifically on his website http://jasonlouv.com/

It gives information such as radio interviews, podcasts, speaking events, and his past journalistic endeavors for Vice, and Boing Boing. I am not sure if it confirms the reliability of the interview with Merhige, but it does give more room to suggest the possibility.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • SmellsLikeScreenSpirit- Although the site is now dead, the archived information leads me to suggest that it was legitimate. Due to the site no longer existing, it is difficult to find out about its reliability and I do not know how to go about doing that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com- Originally served as a placeholder till I found the book the information was from, I found it now, and as such this source has been removed from the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • '13thFloor- Questionable and will remove.

--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that a source is legitimate, great, but I'm gonna need a bit more information about why that's the case! I also see some other questionable sources, eg. Reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made more progress with the sources now. SmellsLikeScreenSpirit has been removed and replaced by a more reliably sourced interview (CHUD.com). The Nightmare on Films Street site I have looked into and found that they are a branch off of Bloody Disgusting's network.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn Creek[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, You removed the find a grave link to William McIntosh in the External Links section of this article. The information you deleted does not seem to be redundant, and might be regarded as useful. Could you explain your reasoning? Gulbenk (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk , I don't agree that it is useful to an understanding of the article topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Anderson[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm not sure whether you saw my ping here, but it's clear that there is some significant close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, in the Marian Anderson article, which was unfortunately not found during the article's GA review. Now it's at DYK, and the nomination has run into trouble because of what's been found so far. What I'm wondering is how severe this is overall. If what's been found is the basic extent of it, then this can go forward. If there's more of it, then the article probably needs a reassessment. Can you please take a look and see how much of a problem this is? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, with the disclaimer that I haven't gone through in a great level of detail and don't have access to some of the sources to try: there is some concerning closeness with a different NYT piece cited earlier in the article's history, but nothing stands out as being obvious copyvio outside of the sources identified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, and doing so very quickly, Nikkimaria. Can you please let me know which NYT piece was the other one? There are quite a few uses of NYT articles in the reference list, and it would save a lot of time to know which one was involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one. It also looks like several other sources than just the WCSU one have copied from our article, including myblackhistory, Hollywood Walk of Fame, and this book. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I appreciate the link. I'm not able to see exactly what concerned you with this one, so if you could please post the phrase(s) or location info of the Keiler issues to the DYK nomination template, I'd appreciate it. The earlier places, plus another found by Yoninah since then, have been worked on, and it makes sense to get yours taken care of as well. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New edits[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your welcome! I noticed that you reverted the edits I made to the Aragorn and Arwen articles. I just reviewed the guidelines here on linking to external websites, and was wondering if you would be willing to point me to which specific policy you believe was violated? I wouldn't add links to random fansites, but believed links to the LotR wiki would be acceptable given its size and wide usage. Thanks! Bitterhand (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bitterhand, specifically WP:ELNO. If you disagree with my removal, you're welcome to raise the issue at the external links noticeboard, which is a venue for the discussion of disputed external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes in York[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you said that my addition to the article on Guy Fawkes Night did not require a new section. I can understand why you said that. I looked for a place in the existing structure to add it, but could not find it.

I feel that its non-observance in York especially and, to a lesser extent, other parts of Yorkshire is a significant fact and would be of interest to many readers. (On a personal note, I can remember being told by a teacher at junior school in Wakefield that we didn't burn guys in Yorkshire.) Is there somewhere else that it can go in the article? It is just two sentences. Can it not be fitted in somewhere else?

Thanks. Epa101 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epa101, I'm not convinced the sentence about the specific school warrants inclusion at all. With regards to the preceding sentence, does the source give any more detail? For example, was it once a tradition that has declined more recently, or is the nonobservance consistent throughout history? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria. This is the entry from the Arnold Kellett (2002) source for the word guy:
guy effigy, esp when paraded round by children ('A penny for the guy!') and then burnt on a bonfire. The term comes from the first name of the notorious Yorkshireman, Guy Fawkes, now one of the most overworked words in the English language, mainly in the USA, where it can refer to any person, male or female. A guy is not burnt at St Peters School, York, where Guy Fawkes was a pupil, nor usually at Scotton where he lived, and in former times guys were not burnt in certain other places, such as Wakefield.
That doesn't say very much more than what I wrote in my edit, but I thought that I'd paste it anyway so that you can see for yourself. Cheers. Epa101 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Does the entry provide any sources for this content? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no.  :) Epa101 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other sources available that elaborate? If this is the only source that mentions it I'd be inclined to leave it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Find a Grave[edit]

You removed the link to Find a Grave from the external links section of Bruno Bertagna. You cited “EL” which doesn’t tell us much. I see nothing under EL “ Links normally to be avoided” that would suggest this use of Find a Grave is improper. In fact it supplies burial info not otherwise found in the article, which is specifically cited as a reason for including a Find a Grave in external links. As we are told on the entry for the Find a Grave template HERE:

To comply with WP:ELNO, only place [the Find a Grave template] in External links section if the website contains unique information not already mentioned and cited in the body of the article and is not a WP:COPYLINK violation. Remove from External links if Find a Grave is already cited in main body, if burial information is provided in main body by a more reliable source, or if the page contains any unlicensed copyrighted information (e.g., professional portrait photography or copies of obituaries from a newspaper). [Emphasis added]

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bmclaughlin9, as explained at Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites, this is rarely an acceptable external link, as it fails several elements of ELNO. In this particular case the burial location is readily verifiable with more reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe that is true. I search very hard for burial info before adding a Find a Grave template to EL. I’d love to see you add that info. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding “US” after city and state on baseball, basketball, college coach articles[edit]

“US” after city, state is not a requirement of WP:MOS and further isn’t consensus for infobox templates for baseball, basketball, football and NCAA coaches. That’s why I removed them. Rikster2 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, "not required" is not in itself a rationale for removal. What is your argument against including this information, which helps readers from outside the US identify these locations? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have not read the second part of what I wrote - also not consensus for these templates. The nationalities of the subjects are (or should be) spelled out in the lede and are easily deciphered in context. Take a look at the template documentation for Template:Infobox college coach – the example doesn’t list “US.” There is a reason for this. The infobox is a small space and over the years it’s been determined that this information just isn’t worth the real estate, By the way, the basketball infobox template drops country for Canadian and Australian provinces as well. If you are looking to add country to a relative handful of cases, you should probably look to obtain consensus at the template talk page as this creates a new standard of consistency. Rikster2 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rikster2 is correct regarding the standard practice for these templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rikster2, could you please provide a link to where consensus was established not to include country? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the template for the basketball biography template with a link to the original consensus discussion. You added US to Charlie Hoag (and others) against that consensus. I will look for the discussions on the other templates. Rikster2 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The linked discussion shows two in favour and two opposed - not really something that could be described as a consensus for mandating a particular style. Will see what else you find. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a consensus backed up by years and 1000s of articles and if you think it is weak and are interested in going against it you should try to form a consensus to the contrary. Rikster2 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything stronger to show for the other articles in which you reverted, which use other templates? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reached out to User:Jweiss11 as he is much more involved in college coach and football articles. I also posted the question on the WP:BASEBALL to see if there is formal consensus and tagged you in it. If there isn’t then certainly you are within your rights to add “US.” On basketball, it’s in the template documentation so adding it needs a discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, you're editing disruptively now on this subject. You must a build a new consensus to overturn the prevailing standards for these infoboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss11, you've not been able to provide any evidence that a consensus exists on this matter. It is far more common for biographical articles to include this information, which helps non-US readers who are not familiar with US geography. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus exists in the examples used in the template documentation and in the prevailing standards used on thousands of articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss11, as I said, there are thousands of articles that do include this. The template documentation doesn't give explicit instruction one way or the other. Do you have any links supporting a consensus against inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the specific infoboxes in question, virtually 0% out of tens of thousands of articles use the "US". The template documentation indeed gives explicit instruction by virtue of the examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An example which may or may not have been constructed in a specific way is not an explicit instruction. There are literally tens of thousands of articles that do use "US". What is your reason not to do so? What makes these particular biographies uniquely suited to not doing so? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly testify that the example at Template:Infobox college coach was constructed in a specific way, because I was of the editors who constructed it based on standards reached from discussion and collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. The subject matter here is inherently North American, and in most cases inherently American. The tens of thousands of articles that do use "US" employ infoboxes with more global applicability, e.g. Bill Clinton. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, can you point to discussions demonstrating a consensus around this specific issue? And no, it is not true either that using "US" is limited to "global" articles or that these articles are in any way inherently American. This is a global encyclopedia written for global readers, and that's true whether you're writing about a president or a college coach. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. Go look at MOS:TIES. All these infoboxes by definition are for athletes who are strongly connected to the United States and therefore should comply with formal written American English. And formal written American English is (1) concise and (2) uses U.S., not US. When it's clear in context that the article's subject is an American (because it's stated in the first paragraph of the article), there is no need to add US in every infobox. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're writing here for an international audience, meaning that we should aim to make articles accessible to all readers. TIES in no way precludes providing that context. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your tireless review work. I am specifically thinking of ACR and FAC image reviews, but this is only scratching the surface of your contributions. I don't know how you do it all, but it is all much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Witherspoon[edit]

Hi, it is regarding this edit. According to the template documentation, the |birth_name= parameter can be used if it differs from the |name= parameter. In the article John Witherspoon (actor), it is clearly mentioned and sourced that the subject changed his surname from "Weatherspoon" to "Witherspoon". I believe it should reflect in the infobox as per the template doc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk - sorry, that was my error. I've restored it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review question[edit]

At WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genus names (L–P)/archive1 I've got a request to "standardize" the format to either mention the country or not ... "Portland, OR, US" vs. "New York, NY". Looking at a bunch of recently promoted FACs and FLCs (other than this one), I don't see anyone asking for "New York, NY, US" ... is "New York, NY, US" ever required at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Technically both OR and NY shouldn't be used unless you're employing a specific citation style that requires that usage, per MOS:POSTABBR. If you were using such a style I'd advise you to refer to that style guide for guidance on this point. If not, the question comes down to consistency: you'll sometimes see just "New York City" on the basis that people likely know where that place is, but in this article you've got "Chicago, US" which is along similar lines, so I'd weigh the consistency argument in favour of including it for all locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apologies ... I guess I should have learned this stuff long ago. In recently promoted FACs, I'm seeing a lot of "Chichester, West Sussex" etc. without a mention of country ... I think I'm more comfortable with that. Thanks for setting me straight. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, you can do that too, it just needs to be consistent. When I'm looking at that article, I'm wondering why you would include a country and no state for Chicago, and a state but no country for NYC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fixed already? If not let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback re: Find a Grave[edit]

Nikkimaria has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020[edit]

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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Wikipedia in African Libraries Project
  • Brazil report: Abre-te Código hackathon, Wikidata related events and news from our partners
  • Finland report: Postponed Hack4FI GLAM hackathon turned into an online global Hack4OpenGLAM
  • France report: Partnership with BNU Strasbourg
  • Germany report: Coding da Vinci cultural data hackathon heads to Lower Saxony
  • India report: Mapping GLAM in Maharashtra, India
  • Indonesia report: Bulan Sejarah Indonesia 2.0; Structured data edit-a-thon; Proofreading mini contest
  • Netherlands report: National History Month: East to West, Dutch libraries and Wikipedia
  • New Zealand report: West Coast Wikipedian at Large
  • Norway report: The Sámi Languages on wiki
  • Serbia report: Many activities are in our way
  • Sweden report: Librarians learn about Wikidata; More Swedish literature on Wikidata; Online Edit-a-thon Dalarna; Applications to the Swedish Innovation Agency; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete; Librarians and Projekt HBTQI; GLAM Statistical Tool
  • UK report: Enamels of the World
  • USA report: American Archive of Public Broadcasting; Smithsonian Women in Finance Edit-a-thon; Black Lunch Table; San Diego/October 2020; WikiWednesday Salon
  • Calendar: November'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.

Fold3[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I tried to renew my Library access to Fold3 back in September and I see you approved it and sent it off to them, but for some reason my membership there isn't yet active, it just has me as an expired "free" member. I'm reaching out for help :) ♟♙ (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EnPassant, if you go to this page and click on "Access collection" under Fold3, what happens? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page says "Expires on: Sept. 6, 2021". When I click on it, it asks me to login, and when I do it logs me in, but my membership on my Fold3 account page says "Expired Membership". Something didn't connect, somehow. ♟♙ (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, is this a new way of accessing the collection? The URL is different, so maybe I'm not supposed to log in or something. EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out LOL. ♟♙ (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's a proxy-based access instead. So you're in now? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am, thanks again! ♟♙ (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please do not start edit wars. It may result in you being banned from Wikipedia.

Have a great day. Politialguru (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politialguru, the onus is on you to get consensus for your changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with FA review[edit]

Hi, I know you don't know me from Adam, but I have [Biblical criticism] undergoing an FA review that is stalling for lack of a source review. The coordinator says they will archive it if it doesn't get more response soon and to go look at frequent reviewers and ask shamelessly! So I am! I see that you are a frequent reviewer, and I read your requirements and have no problem with any of them. You sound tough but I think that's absolutely necessary. I respond quickly, with a good attitude and cooperation - or at least a really good reason for compromise. ((Smiley)) Please come and help get this important article what it needs to be among Wikipedia's best. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777, it looks like there's already been a source review? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Two people have checked the formatting of references but that's all so far. It requires going to the reference, finding the page that's referenced, and reading to see whether or not the reference actually says something akin to what is claimed in the text. It's tedious and detailed work, and this is a complicated topic, that is still pretty obscure for most. I asked a friend who is a programmer who does detail work all day long, and he did one source, and said he couldn't tell heads or tails what it was saying or if the text was accurate and didn't feel like he could do any more. It was a direct quote, but it was two sentences out of a paragraph and it lost him. The things we know seem so obvious to us, but to others, not so much. I appreciated that he was willing to make the effort. Just as I would appreciate anything you felt like doing. A review of ten sources - heck, one - would be more than there is so far. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Place of publication[edit]

Hi. Why are you removing the location parameter from references? This is valuable information, both for identifying references and evaluating their context. —Michael Z. 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mzajac, the rest of the article's citations omit the parameter, so I removed them here to maintain consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent style doesn’t seem like any reason to permanently delete valuable data. Where does the idea come from? Is there a guideline supporting this? —Michael Z. 14:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is featured, one of the criteria of which is that it uses a consistent citation style. Additionally, I wouldn't agree that in a typical case the location is valuable, so long as the publisher is known (excepting a few ambiguous cases). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is consistent citation format. Presence or absence of data is not style. Are you going to remove editor and second and third authors because not all books have those? Of course not. I am adding them back. Please don’t do this any more. —Michael Z. 01:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, please don't edit-war. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t intend to. Your interpretation of the guideline is mistaken. The guideline clearly explains that it refers to format and not content, and even exemplifies it showing footnote markup, and refers to WP:CITE which shows what info citations typically include, saying “ other details may be added as necessary.” It can’t be much clearer. If you disagree, let’s call an RFC and see what consensus says. In the meantime, please stop deleting valuable data. —Michael Z. 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to call an RfC you're welcome to do so, but in the meantime, please leave the status quo in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Mzajac, introducing a difference between content and format is not helpful here. If some citations have locations and others don't, it's simply not consistent. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t introduce the difference. It’s inherent in the concepts. The format is consistent; the data is obviously different because they are different sources! What do you mean “status quo”? You started deleting parts of my edits. I can’t believe we are having this conversation. —Michael Z. 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to your edit, the article consistently did not include publication locations for sources of any type. That is what I mean by "status quo". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10#Location, and there is no consensus for your view. Sorry, but you are completely misconstruing the meaning of “format” in the FA criteria. Please call an RFC or otherwise find consensus if you can’t see that. —Michael Z. 03:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've got that backwards: you don't have consensus for the change you want to make, so the onus is on you to find consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure adding references with available data is supported by consensus and is not a “change” of consistently formatted inline citations. By the way, I added a source from 1755 that lacks an ISBN. I hope you don’t “reformat” the inconsistent references by deleting all ISBNs before someone launches an FA review. —Michael Z. 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will make you feel better about consistency in the article’s citations: I went through and added missing information. —Michael Z. 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, some of your changes were helpful and consistent with the article's established citation style; I thank you for those. Others were neither, and those I have undone, along with making other citation improvements. As previously, you're welcome to start an RfC if you want to seek consensus, whether for changing this particular article's citation style or mandating the inclusion of locations more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just blew away a lot of work. Please let me know what about it didn’t match the article’s established citation style so I can enter it the way you want. Thanks. —Michael Z. 23:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I have already taken the time to sift through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful discusses the difference between citation format and content, and makes this explicit: “The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information.” Please restore the place of publication in the article, and any others where you’ve removed it. —Michael Z. 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citations already provide bibliographic information sufficient to identify the source and so allow for verification. That provision is not intended to require the addition of optional parameters such as location. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two data points are marked “(optional),” and place of publication is not one of them. —Michael Z. 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, if you want to start an RfC to make locations globally required you're welcome to do so. But at the moment they are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are globally allowed at the moment. Are you familiar with the phrase about “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin . . .”? —Michael Z. 02:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allowed != required. If you disagree with the idea that citation style should be consistent within an article, you're welcome to start an RfC on that point as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And !required != banned. Also, content != format/style. —Michael Z. 03:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never claimed they're banned, simply that this article has an established citation style that omits them. Again, if you want to see that change, you have several different RfCs you could pursue. Continuing to post here isn't going to accomplish that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#RFC: Does following style guidelines on consistent citations mean consistent inclusion of “place of publication”?. I tried to ask the simple question without specifics about this article, and without advocating. Let’s see what others think, okay? —Michael Z. 21:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your kind assistance. FunkMunk and Czar were very helpful.Venicescapes (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 41[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

  • New partnership: Taxmann
  • WikiCite
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave listings[edit]

FYI, I'm conducting an experiment with a Find a Grave listing for a "famous person" who also has a WP article. The listing has no biographical material, so I've suggested some bare facts (gender, POD, and bio data) to describe the person. I'm curious to see how long the material gets incorporated (e.g., approved by FAG editors) into the listing. And, BTW, I've reviewed the edit history for James Garrard. This was a TFA on June 7, 2013, at which time it had FAG listed in the EL section. And the FAG page did not contain photos of his burial site. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that oversight. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You might ask the editors who worked to make Garrad a GA and FA and TFA – with the FAG EL – if they appreciate your edit. They include admins Acdixon and WOSlinker. (It was WOSlinker who converted the FAG url to the template.)
Also, late last month I suggested some minor edits to the Robert Korda listing. (Korda was an orchestra leader of noteworthy repute. I might work-up a WP article on him.) The suggested edits were approved today. What's the point? Individual FAG users exercise control over the individual listings they manage. (FAG editors control the "famous" person listings.) In this regard FAG exercises more editorial control over its content than WP. With FAG the users provide their e-mail addresses, which are verified before they can edit. (I don't think WP has this safeguard.) With the Robert Korda FAG listing, it is managed by Romper90069. (The data on Romper's FAG edits is generated by FAG, not Romper.) The FAG "community", like most family genealogists, assumes GF.
Back to Garrard, suppose the FAG page on him had a photo of his gravestone, would you still remove the EL? – S. Rich (talk)
I couldn't say without seeing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minute! You removed the FAG template link from James Garrard without looking at it? Please don't evade my question – suppose the FAG link did have a gravestone photo, would you still remove it?
I looked at the page that exists; I couldn't say what I would do with a different page, without seeing that page first.
Also, I will posit another question/challenge. Please look at Ray Barker. Prompted by your challenging edits WRT FAG, I searched out and revised much of the article. And I included a FAG link. Did I help improve WP? (Caution, please, my edit—question to you has two "trick" aspects to it.) Thank you so very much for engaging in this talk. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested in engaging in "tricks". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I wasn't trying to trick you. Rather I had two points of concern: 1. arlingtoncemetery.net, which is seen on many military related articles, is not a "secure" link and is largely comprised of user contributions. 2. The FAG listing for Ray Barker was contributed by a reputable source – the International War Graves Photography Project. So: 1. what do you think of arlingtoncemetery.net? Is it acceptable for photos of gravesites? Is it acceptable for biographic info? And: 2. does the status of IWGPP, as a FAG user, change your evaluation of FAG? (Again, thank you for engaging in this talk, and for your patience.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "secure" in this context, and do not see a mechanism to log in and contribute to the arlingtoncemetery.net site. On the second question, what leads you to believe IWGPP is reputable?
In this particular case, there's a photo of the gravesite available on Commons, so there's no need to rely on either site for a photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about IWGPP. Here is their FAG contributor page: [9] and here is their website. Another major contributor to FAG is the War graves. These are institutions with huge databases. when you dismiss FAG links without looking beyond the basic source you are dismissing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. – S. Rich (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first profile and website you have posted do not seem to be about the same people, and the second profile provides no information that would lead one to believe their contributions are particularly reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Kornberger[edit]

I see you created this 11 years ago, but I don't think it would survive WP:AfD, and it has been edited extensively by a SPA that appears to be the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you with the SPA piece, but I think it would survive. Much of the available sourcing is non-English. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looks like there is no SPA content persisting - the article is almost identical now to what was first posted. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

URFA message[edit]

What do you think about working up together a general WP:URFA/2020 message (after US Thanksgiving) to be posted across WikiProject talk pages explaining the process and encouraging editors to tune up and comment on FAs, and at URFA/2020? Sort of like what we would do in a FAC newsletter, or FCDW Dispatch, if we still had one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, think that would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on it post-turkey and then ping you and other coords, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

i know your always being asked to do things...so will ask but with the intent of starting in the new year. Long ago - ten years Aboriginal Canadians passed its GA review....thinking its time to redo the article. Would you be interested in overseeing my edits and perhaps doing an informal review after fixup?--Moxy 🍁 03:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extra large images[edit]

Regarding the display of extra large images, as at present on top of BWV 37: I don't think we should have them at all. For whom and what? Everybody needing a pic larger can click on it. IF larger, why not within the infobox? IF any reason for not in the infobox, why not below the infobox? But back to the beginning: I'd go for a normal-size image (not larger than upright=1.3) IN the infobox. IF a specific image should be shown larger (to make detail visible at a glance), it could go to the context in the article body, and a different one could be lead image, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This particular image warrants being larger than is reasonable to display within the template, to allow users to see the detail within it without having to leave the article. Placing it within the template makes that very wide. As for why above vs below, if it were in the infobox it would be nearer the top, so having it at the top rather than below all the content makes it consistent with that expectation. If you have a different lead image to propose I'd be happy to take a look at that, although this one seems quite appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This particular image is in other Ascension cantatas and the Ascension Oratorio without being extra-large. I'd understand better if the details of the image had anything to do with the cantata, or if this was an article about the image. - I don't see what's wrong with the infobox being extra-wide. - As for expectation: a reader expecting an infobox will be disappointed because the pic pushes it out far enough to not being visible without scrolling on my screen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since I uploaded the image for BWV 29 (the obbligato organ solo for the sinfonia), I took the opportunity to upload a new image for the ascension, choosing one that seemed appropriate. Since the same image seems to have been used many times for different cantatas, I opted instead for Rembrandt's "Ascension of Christ" from the Munich Pinakothek for BWV 37. I hope this is OK. At the same time, I realised that I had a high resolution image of the sinfonia for BWV 76 (previously used for Organ Sonatas (Bach)), so have included that image for the cantata (it is a 1723 autograph manuscript). Mathsci (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you. I currently have an article at FAC at which a user has stated their opposition to a lack of images. I have a number of player images available, such as File:Hardy, Billy.jpg, which I've avoided using because I'm doubtful they would pass under their current licence. You've provided image reviews at a number of my FACs previously, so was hoping to run these by you to get your thoughts? Would they pass as they are? Kosack (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kosack, the US licensing on that image is fine. With regards to the UK licensing, as per the tag, "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all I can on the Hardy image. Would this past muster in your opinion? Kosack (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Kosack (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you so very, very much. You are absolutely the most amazing person. You could have dumped me at any point, but you never quit and never even yelled at me once - which surely you must have felt like from time to time! If this succeeds, I feel as though it is more due to your work than mine, because I could not have done all of this on my own. You are just wonderful, your work is wonderful, and I am a permanent fan. It would be nice to think I could repay the favor someday, but I know the likelihood of me being able to help you with anything is pretty low, but if you ever need a friend, please count me as one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opera sidebox[edit]

As said in some edit summaries: the opera sidebox which duplicates the navbox, often has a picture of the composer at a "wrong" age, and has no picture related more closely to the opera, is no service to the reader. Could you please NOT restore it for operas mainly edited by VivaVerdi (who is dead so can't object, but before added infoboxes to all Verdi operas) and Voceditenore whose vote is clear? ... while I leave Handel and Offenbach alone, for respect of editor's wishes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I appreciate you don't like these templates, but the TfD found no consensus for their deletion. I would encourage you to restore those you've removed during the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus - at least to me - says exactly that there is no consensus, - not support. While there was support for keeping the template for Handel, I saw nothing of the kind for Donizetti where all the masterworks had infoboxes for years, and the only reason for side navboxes left was my laziness to spend time on the lesser works. I'd hate to go into another round of discussions. Repeating, VivaVerdi opted for infoboxes long ago, and respect for him would - imho - lead to no longer use the so-called "clunky" navbox in articles where he was a main author. Today is Sunday, I enjoyed music and sunshine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of deletion discussions, a "no consensus" finding results in the template being kept. Contrast the other discussions about specific templates, where even when authors opted for using those templates, they were deleted. I don't doubt there will be another round of discussions if you do not restore the templates you've removed, since as a result they are unused. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It being kept doesn't mean "it is useful". No more today. It makes me sick, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that you don't feel it's useful; others do. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, please think about the close if it results in this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question: "Why apply that to this one and not to the other?" - this being the opera composer sidebar, the other being the composer navbox: because this has accessibility flaws, and the other is the normal navigation on Wikipedia. I don't mind both in one article, as I have accepted for years, but to deprive readers of the normal and accessible form is not acceptable. Please self-revert your reverts of my reverts. Primefac may be interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You previously indicated that you felt having both in one article was redundant. However, both are navboxes: if the rationale is that any article linked must include it, then that rationale applies equally to both. See above. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are days when I question my ability to express myself. Trying again: we have two navboxes in a given article. I don't mind. That's what we had for a long time now in the Donizetti article. Not ideal but I let it go. Today, in a rather bold edit, you removed the navbox, added in 1916 and stable, and left the sidebar with its problems of not showing the image to many readers, and occupying space where a more relevant image or an infobox could be. Why? Why not add a more relevant image or an infobox? I reverted your rather bold edit, and you didn't go to the talk. I recommend you self-revert. - Other question: what makes a user a principle editor to an article, in %? [10] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my question would be why this argument does not apply to both cases: side navboxes that had been stable for years were boldly removed, and re-removed after revert with no talk. See above. I'm not sure why one would be more accessible than the other: from my understanding both are not shown on mobile, and if someone has difficulty uncollapsing one that is collapsed I would imagine they'd face the same difficulties with the other. Thank you for explaining that you don't mind having both; I must have misunderstood your previous statements on that topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I would have minded having both, and still left it that way for four years? When I added the navbox I left the sidebar, - you please leave the navbox. I understand that the navbox shows on mobile. All other Donizetti operas, compositions, and the composer have the navbox. I see no reason to make any exception for Pia. Last call. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last call for what? It was in Pia before you posted that. FTR though it does not show, just checked. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I walk my watchlist top to bottom. Thank you. I wanted to undo my edit but you were faster. (edit conflict, twice) - How about Debussy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for editing the article Bagger 288! Sorry about the random image lol.

Ilikememes128 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the automated infobox?[edit]

Here As Barbas do Imperador. There was more information in the automated infobox. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetizeraz, it was producing an error - see the title. Also genre should be specified only for fiction works, |subject= is appropriate for non-fiction. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sorry for being a bit angry. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 07:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open[edit]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas, the template you're adding didn't and doesn't apply. Perhaps you meant to add a different template. Also, if you see a tag being removed and you don't understand why, I would suggest asking rather than templating. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The template I've added noted that the citations were not complete. And in fact they were not. They did not have accesdates or who published them. They require it. If you don't want to be templated, do not remove templates without fixing the problem. People who are "regulars" would know that to be the case. I've re-reverted your recent edit as you have removed the access dates of citations and added unsourced information. That is against WP:OR and WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrzejbanas: (1) You added a template claiming that the article contained bare URLs; it did not. As I said, perhaps you meant to add a different template, such as {{incomplete citations}} if your concern was that the citations were not complete. (2) Access dates are not required for sources with a set publication date that does not change; all of the sources currently cited fall into that category. (3) My edit added no content to the article, unsourced or sourced; it only affected citations. Please be more careful in making such claims. (4) Your revert reintroduced errors (eg claiming a publisher of "MedisaSmarts") and actually made citations less complete (eg removing |website=Campaign). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2020[edit]



Headlines
  • AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Launch of Wikipedia in African Libraries Project Pilot Cohort
  • Brazil report: Accessibility through audio descriptions, GLAM tutorials, WikidataCon 2021 and more updates on Brazilian GLAMs
  • Canada report: Taking a tour of CAPACOA workshops and some recent example sets from commons
  • Germany report: German symphony orchestra releases audio samples under free license
  • India report: Re-licensing of content on water & rivers in India
  • Indonesia report: #WikiSejarah WPWP Campaign
  • Netherlands report: Wikipedia and Education, Funding granted for two projects in 2021, KB completes collection highlights project
  • Serbia report: GLAM in Serbia makes important steps in the digitization of cultural heritage
  • Spain report: Edit-a-thons on women scientists and painters
  • Sweden report: Music, UNESCO and Wikidata
  • UK report: Hundreds of Khalili images
  • USA report: Black Lunch Table & Museum Computer Network
  • Calendar: December'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.

My WL application[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for processing my Wikipedia Library application. I'm sorry but I realize I applied for the wrong collection: Nature instead of Link. Should I "return" the Nature and make a new application for Link, or is there some other procedure to switch it? Thanks! Levivich harass/hound 19:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, yep, please do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020[edit]

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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39 sources.[edit]

I thought of both Bach Cantatas Website sources as posts. This is apparently the misunderstanding.

  • If Kommt, laßt euch den Herren lehren is a publication, wouldn't the author/date be "David Denicke (1648)" via "Bach Cantatas Website"?
  • "Kommt, laßt euch den Herren lehren - Text and Translation of Chorale" might be a better title with "Francis Browne (September 2005)" as translator/date.
  • "Chorale Melodies used in Bach's Vocal Works - Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele" might be a better title for the other post.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to get consistent, useful cites. User-duck (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) we have one user who doesn't accept Bach Cantatas Website as a reliable source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User-duck: Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ELs[edit]

Looks like you are WP:FOLLOWING my edits and removing the FindaGrave ELs. Why? Because you are an editor who doesn't like findagrave. And it doesn't matter when the site is posted simply as an interesting and useful link for readers. Here is an example [11]. The particular findagrave link is maintained by Findagrave. That is, FAG has active editorial control of the page. Accordingly it is not WP:SPS in the sense that any FAG contributor can change it. Any data that needs changing must be suggested to FAG -- they review those changes. You ignore the fact that some readers who conduct genealogy via FAG. E.g., they can use the website to locate relatives. (And some readers are interested in their famous relatives with WP articles. For example, someone is interested in Ely's children or grandchildren. FAG is a useful tool in this endeavor. But you are obscuring the starting point. Why? Because you simply don't like FAG, and nothing more. Such edits are WP:BATTLEGROUND in nature, inhibit the WP:ENJOYment of editing, and do nothing to improve the quality of WP articles. Please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your edits; I'm following maintenance categories and searches used to identify links unlikely to meet WP:EL - for example, where there is already an ANC link or image of the grave in the article. You are adding such links at high volume. I understand that you like these links, but current consensus is that they should rarely be used and are almost never reliable. You're welcome to start a discussion aimed at changing that, keeping in mind that recent ELN discussions have reached a similar conclusion. In the interim though, please stop adding these links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide links to those maintenance categories and searches. I should like to learn what (and how) they provide such useful information. I may use them for my own efforts to improve WP. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example articles that already have a gravestone image, burials at Arlington, and articles where the associated Wikidata item has a different link. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cokie Roberts[edit]

Question for you. Cokie Roberts is buried at the Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC. I've just added her Find a Grave listing to the EL section. Roberts is listed as a famous person and the listing is managed by Find a Grave. The photos of her gravestone were added by the Historic Congressional Cemetery Archivist. Is it improper to have Roberts' Find a Grave link as an EL on the article page? If improper, then why? And if proper, then why? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they credit Wikipedia for the biographical information, it would not seem that being managed by Find a Grave is anything to recommend a particular profile. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I understand: It is improper to include Roberts' FAG link in her WP article because the curators or editors at the cemetery have included info from WP in their description of Roberts. How about Adelaide Johnson? She's buried at the CC. Adelaide Johnson at Find a Grave. The bio info on her is a 2 sentence description – and it does not attribute where the info came from. (The CC search page verifies her burial.) Is it proper or improper for WP to include her FAG link? (A link which shows the very simple grave marker for her.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What benefit do you believe the reader derives from including that particular link, as opposed to the CC search link? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please. I ask a direct question about whether particular ELs in particular articles are proper or improper. I'm hoping for answers that are grounded WP policy.
We don't ask readers to justify their choices or decisions when they click the wikilinks or reference links – we supply the links and let the readers decide if the info is useful. But to answer your question, a reader interested in Adelaide Johnson might look at the article. And that reader might be interested in her burial. Well, the reader can learn about her burial in the WP article. Next, that reader might be interested in what sort of grave marker was placed for Adelaide. (Does she have a glorious monument done up in emulation of her own sculpting style?) But WP and the CC website does not provide his info. (The only way is through CC's virtual visit. But using that tool means they must know exactly where her gravestone or monument is.) BUT the FindaGrave website, curated by the CC Curator, does this for the interested reader. So, your question is answered. I believe readers using the such particular links can achieve their objectives if WP supplies such helpful links as ELs. Where am I wrong in this regard? – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A reader interested in a particular topic may have a variety of objectives, and therefore there may be a wide variety of external sites that may be of interest to them. But we don't respond to every possible objective, or provide every possible external link, because there are some things that we are not - including a directory. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Because your edit summary said "rm non-RS" at Robert Alter and the source was a dead link, I interpreted the addition in the diff and read it as a removal. I thought I was adding it back with an updated source. Sorry about the confusion. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miramar Ship Index WL application[edit]

Hey, I just found out you approved my application on the wikipedia library, and then 4 minutes later sent it to partner. What does that mean? How do I log in to get access? Thanks in advance, Ghinga7 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ghinga7, you should have an email with that information - check your spam maybe? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I nearly never check that email... I'll do that now. I didn't know the information would be emailed to me. Thanks for telling me. Ghinga7 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, found the email, made account. However, it says my subscription expires on the 23rd. Is that an error or is that how long it lasts? Ghinga7 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you followed the instructions in the email, it should get processed on their end before that date. (Assuming there is no delay due to holidays). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, cool. I followed the instructions, so I should be good. Thanks! Ghinga7 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon article FA status[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, the ongoing FAR drive that hit Japan will no doubt hit Cameroon soon, which is in a much sorrier state. I noticed you saved it in a 2013 FAR, so I thought I might elicit your opinion on its quality and viability. Personally I feel that it would take quite substantial work to bring it up to current standards, and there's not really anyone looking after it well. Best, CMD (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria is saving the world, one country at a time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CMD, I actually don't feel that's in too bad of shape - there's definitely some dated content and a few missing citations, but I think less so than there was at Japan. However, I don't have capacity at the moment to dig into it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised, that doesn't tally with my experience of both articles at all. I'll leave it for further opinions then. There's enough country articles in the FAR process already, adding another right now doesn't feel productive. CMD (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, as I said I don't have time to dig into it right now, so possibly I'm overlooking some deeper issues - was there something in particular you noticed as problematic? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the surface level there's quite a few MOS issues, but at a deeper level it's suffered from the general sporadic and incoherent edits country articles tend to accumulate, that haven't been put together (a few months ago I consolidated multiple different references that were all just the CIA factbook). As you note the content has become quite dated, some parts are unsourced, and some citations don't seem to lead anywhere. It suffers from acute Culture section syndrome, with that section being a list with no overarching information about culture, and many of the other sections feel similarly unfocused. I've removed a problematic lead tangent, and done some face-level tweaks, and while I haven't delved into each source, edits I've seen and the changes I've made so far haven't left it feeling good for me (especially compared to much better non-FA articles). CMD (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this particular article I think it would read better if most of the subsectioning was taken out. Take a look at the version at the time of the last FAR and see if that's any better (wrt things other than datedness).

Season's Greetings[edit]

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 to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!

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

(Sent: 05:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Sixties Scoop[edit]

Hi Here's my source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6MDXQ6KAsY&t

Please watch the whole film, but the specific number is stated at 5:50

I hope we can correct this, if 15,500 aboriginal children were in residential schools in 1977 (cited in the article), a place they would often stay for less than two years. The numbers don't add up. That number only includes children in residential schools for that year, not the hundred years this practice happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, just looking at other sources, there seems to be far more supporting the 20k number for Sixties Scoop - eg Canadian Encyclopedia, APTN, Canadian Geographic. Do you have other sources for 150k? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't because all the 'verified' sources are from western newspapers that downplay the numbers massively. You only have to look at the history to know that that number of 20k does not match the hundred-and-fifty years these schools operated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_residential_schools_in_Canada

There must be something you can do in terms of separating the official number published by the government and the supposed true extent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.138.5 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, is it possible we're looking at different things? The article Canadian Indian residential school system uses the 150k number, but the article you were editing was Sixties Scoop. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference templates have changed[edit]

I have seen that you have changed the correct access-date in multiple articles to the older format of accessdate. That is the same with archive-date and archive-url. Unless I'm mistaken, a quick review of {{Cite web}} will support that claim. Also, it is considered rude to revert without notify the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, they are aliases. If you look at the article output you will see they display correctly with no errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the ProveIt edits: between the formatting changes and the parameter reordering those diffs are quite hard to parse, so I apologize if I'm overlooking any improvements. But the substantive changes that I did spot were errors - for example using |editor-last= for full names and in some cases multiple names. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know they are aliases, and as such it is unnecessary to change the new formatting back. If you don't know what's happening, reverting is entirely inappropriate, wouldn't you say? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that your edit introduced errors. If it also introduced improvements please feel free to point those out and I'd be happy to reinstate them. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, your latest edit reintroduced those same errors, and still does not seem to have had any positive impact. Could you please explain why you continue to revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to explain what error or errors were introduced. I clearly explained the ones you've added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, no, you haven't - aliases are not errors. I mentioned above that your edit used |editor-last= for full names, which is an error. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And instead of fixing the error, you reverted the correct changes in favour of your formatting. Again, aliases are not the correct form, they are a temporary measure before being deprecated. So rather than changing them, stop doing so. There is no need to change them at all. So don't do it.
I fixed the few editor-last errors I missed on the first pass that you reverted and I did not bother looking at in my second pass. Are there other errors? If so, fix them in-places. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the errors by undoing the change. It seems that that particular tool is not well-suited to reference cleanup, at least on well-developed articles - it makes so many unnecessary formatting changes that it becomes difficult to spot substantive ones, and of those there still don't seem to be any that actually improve the article. As to aliases, again, they're not errors. There is no need to change them at all. So don't do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you reverted my edit. You're also annoying other editors now. I suggest you stop making unexplained changes to reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I undid the change because it didn't seem to contain any substantive improvements. I'm sorry if that annoys you. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, your recent changes did not annoy me, they have annoyed others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings of the season[edit]

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott
 Happy holidays
Dear Nikkimaria,

For you and all your loved ones,

"Let there be mercy".


Wishing you health,
peace and happiness
this holiday season and
in the coming year.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2021 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalis soli invicto![edit]

Natalis soli invicto!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of your recent boldly stated, well reasoned and stalwart comments at FAC. They are noted and appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

Hello, thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia nice. We appreciate your effort, but you are unnecessarily flagging David Salzman's page. There are a sufficient number of citations; IMDb is one of twenty-five sources. A. Julian 23:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A.JulianEditor, there are 50 citations to IMDb in that article, outnumbering the citations to other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are a lot of citations from IMDb, but there are still other citations. There are many other sources. IndyBoy IndianaBoy33 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IndianaBoy33, the tag doesn't indicate that there are zero other sources; what it notes is that there is attribution to IMDb, which in this case is quite extensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but I am only citing IMDb when I am referring to his role in the production of movies.A. Julian 01:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A.JulianEditor, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is considered credible when referring to movie credits. I had many other sources supporting other aspects of his life. A. Julian 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC) IndyBoy IndianaBoy33 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. It should be replaced with more reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is niche and known to be reliable in the entertainment industry. Please stop. A. Julian 01:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia it is not. See WP:RS/IMDB. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way I used IMDb was appropriate. I used it as "a tertiary source for hard data on released films." Because of this fact, I am allowed to cite IMDb when referring to movie credits. Also, I added in even more citations to back up the article. I did what you asked, so I hope you now find this satisfactory. I understand you want to keep Wikipedia great, but the page should definitely not be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.JulianEditor, you did not fix the issue flagged: the citations provided do not support the content. Please don't remove that flag until you've actually addressed that problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you actually read the articles cited before you flag pages. Everything cited supports the page. A. Julian 18:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

A.JulianEditor, I have, and no, they do not. For example, the claim that he earned an English Literature degree is currently cited to this source, which states his degree was in journalism. That same source was previously cited for him being born in Brooklyn (doesn't say that), his parents' names (not in there), and him having had polio (definitely not) - all just in the first section. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? You could have been more direct. A. Julian 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

No, that is not all, which is why I said "for example". This is a pervasive problem, thus the tag was and remains warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not read the source because it says, "Salzman grew up in the Flatbush section of Broklyn, N.Y., a few blocks from the baseball sandlot known as the Parade Grounds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, yes, I read it. "Grew up" supports "raised", but not "born". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I will cite another source supporting this. I hope you have something better to do than make other's lives a living hell. Thank you for making me miserable for no reason. A. Julian 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not for "no reason"; it's because we need to be able to verify the information provided, and the information you've provided is not supported by the citations given. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing[edit]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

A New Year With Women in Red![edit]

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Bach Cantatas[edit]

Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende is quite a good private comment, - perhaps I should not have made more of it. I confused two cantatas, one that I just heard - Ich freue mich in dir, BWV 133 - and this one to come today (31 December already where I live). I wanted to expand both, but better stick with one. Wishing you a good 2021, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll be alone in being happy to see 2020 over. Best wishes, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I put the hook on my talk that didn't make it in time, to be exchanged for a Magnificat tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Behavior[edit]

This is enough. You have effectively ruined David Salzman’s page. You should be ashamed. A. Julian 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

A.JulianEditor, as I told you before: it's important that the information you add is actually supported by the citations you provide. You've removed tags flagging these problems multiple times, but that doesn't solve them. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh! I have literally done exactly that! I have cited everything. I am sure you have more important things to edit. You are hurting my mental health. A. Julian 02:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid you haven't. The claims in this edit are not supported by the citations given for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leave his page alone. A. Julian 02:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

A.JulianEditor, again, removing the tag doesn't fix the problem. I provided above the specific statements currently not supported. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I tell you. I went through everything you noted, and I added additional citations. Leave me and the page alone; this is embarrassing. I have been so nice, and you have turned out to be the most disrespectful editor I have ever encountered. I am not trying to shame you here, but your behavior is not okay. Edit other pages, and leave it up to me to fix the page if an actual problem arises. Happy New Year. Goodbye. A. Julian 18:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but again, unfortunately your edits didn't solve the problem, and you reverted mine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look through my new citations? You have my word that they covered each problem. Can we just move on from this? I will keep fixing the page, but it will not work if you keep interfering. Thank you. A. Julian 18:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

Yes, I did, and no, they didn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker: User:A.JulianEditor take your issues to article talk. And please avoid the kind of personalizing and WP:BATTLEGROUND statements you have made above. You will find that Nikkimaria is quite experienced in evaluating sourcing and source-to-text integrity, so I suggest that you try to understand instead of insulting. Watchlisting the article; if you again add text that is not supported by a source, it will be problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A library question[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria

I wish you a Happy 2021 (while it's still January...).

Thank you for processing and approving my application to use Sabinet (via the Wikipedia Library System) on Dec. 6/7, 2020.

The message I've received on December 7, said:

"You can expect to receive access details within a week or two once it has been processed."

I'm quite new to the application process, assuming the above is just the ordinary standard message.

But then everything fell silent (I've also checked my Spam-box). Fair enough, I assumed, it was December, after all.

Therefore I have a few questions. I've only read Wikiproject:Sabinet today, and the following sentence struck me:

"There are up to 20 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership."

At this moment, the 20 "slots" are already filled, [according to the page https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/50/].

So, just for clarity, I'm now officially on a waiting list? Meaning the moment someone's 'time window' expires during 2021 and becomes open again, the next Wikipedian on the list 'fills' it? And then you will receive the necessary access details, etc. etc.?

I don't mind waiting my turn at all, I'm just unsure about the procedures (or if I skipped a vital page of reference). And whether the access details were already sent to me, etc. There could be a thousand reasons, perhaps an error from my side. Or those of the partnership(s).

And moving on with the process, after your time has expired and you are planning to renew your 'membership', it means it's back to the application form once more?

That's quite a lot of questions, but thank you for your patience. Suidpunt (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suidpunt, you got caught up in a holiday processing lag I'm afraid. That 20/20 includes you, but the person on Sabinet's end who would set up your login is on vacation. If you haven't heard anything more by end of month let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, so much. What a relief! Suidpunt (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nikkimaria, it's me again.
I hate bothering you over such a trivial matter once more, but Sabinet still hasn't responded, almost two months after the approval of my application. It might be because our secondary schools start on the 15th of February (not 27 January) and universities even later, somewhere between March and April. So... I'm unsure if I should wait a little bit more.Suidpunt (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Suidpunt - I will see if I can get any more info on that for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Suidpunt (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In use[edit]

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 is {{in use}}, please respect that. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, I would hate to see you put too much effort into making more changes when you haven't found the necessary consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not your concern, is it? If you have remarks or suggestions during the update session you can post them at the article's talk page, Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, best in a new section, the last discussions on that page appear over half a decade old. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, {{in use}} tags are not meant to "reserve" the article for long periods of time. You're welcome to start a new discussion on that talk page to seek consensus for your proposed changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The major edit is not finished. Your shenanigans without discussion on the article's talk page will, because of the additional time I have to put in these disparate actions, only make the major edit last longer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, the onus is on you to seek consensus for the changes you want to make. And also as I've said , the {{in use}} tag is not intended to be used that way, but only when you are actively editing the article for a short period to prevent edit-conflicts. If your intended changes will take more time and you want to avoid others editing it during that time, I would suggest you use a sandbox for drafting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Hi. The Appendix on Page 926 of "The Cantatas of J. S. Bach" by Dürr & Jones (CUP, 2005/2006) lists Cantata BWV 53 as spurious, i.e. no longer regarded as by Johann Sebastian Bach. There are two references to Alfred Dürr's work on the dating and authenticity of the early cantatas. These are his monograph (2nd ed, 1977) and an article in the 1955 Bach-Jahrbuch. Various editors have worked on this article, including User:Gerda Arendt and you. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:@Gerda Arendt: In my comment above, I mentioned that, in the Appendix of his 2006 book on cantatas, Alfred Dürr wrote that cantata BWV 53 was spurious and definitely not by Bach. That still raises the question of who wrote it—hence the entry "G. M. Hoffmann?" So a date before 1715. It's not then possible to ignore Dürr's scholarly assessment, and provide an alternative explanation that Bach was the composer and wrote it in 1723–1734. The faulty chronology and failure to establish authenticity are a result of using out of date sources, namely those of Forkel, Spitta and Terry. That's why we use WP:RS and WP:V. Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you raise these issues on the article talk page rather than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing on the page of BWV 53 is unjustified and blatantly ignores sources. Your reversions seem uncontrolled: you have made no attempt to explain yourself on the article talk page. Please explain yourself on the use talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, as I told Francis, if you feel something you added has been reverted and shouldn't have been, you're welcome to start a discussion on talk to try to get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of unexplained... Mathsci, "deleti ngthe" is not a good rationale for either restoring disputed content or adding errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 53[edit]

Please discontinue your massive content deletions at the BWV 53 article. If you think something should be removed, please take it piecemeal, explaining each step. Please remember:

  • adding germane content to an article = asset for Wikipedia
  • removing germane content from an article = net negative for the Wikipedia project

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned previously, (a) longer doesn't mean better, and (b) the onus is on the person wanting to add the content to get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "longer doesn't mean better" – but you use it as a lame excuse for disruption. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox book edit[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria! I noticed your edit here and was wondering if you could explain what the alt text and genre removal was about. Checked the infobox documentation but can't work it out. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, per the documentation |genre= is used for fiction, and this work is non-fiction. As for alt, it would probably be better to replace it with a more extensive description, but I don't think simply repeating the title is likely to be useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, appreciate it—I know I've had that mistake pointed out to me before so I'll try to remember in future... For the alt, I don't agree that nothing is an improvement on a short functional description. I find MOS:ALT hopelessly confusing in all regards, but my understanding is that the alt text is read out in place of the image name if present, and otherwise the image name is read out. The image could be moved or whatever, so the alt text override is important because it serves a different purpose (what a screen reader should read aloud, rather than a unique identifier for where the image is held internally). MOS says that [for non-decorative images,] the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked. But after re-reading the policy, I agree that a description of the front cover is ideal here, so I've had a go—is this broadly what you imagined? — Bilorv (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, looks good, thanks! If the text down at the bottom of the cover is meant to be a subtitle, I'd suggest putting that somewhere in the box as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, done. — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2020[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

This Month in GLAM: December 2020[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Question about "disinformation"[edit]

Hi, Nikimaria; in [], you used the term "disinformation", but I am unable to determine to what it referred. As I'm more opposed to disinformatsiya than most (particularly on Wikipedia), I'd be gratified if you would provide me with your meaning of the term in that context. Many thanks, --Quisqualis (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It referred to this link cited by the previous commenter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...The commentator previous to what? I'm not actually interested in Steve Bannon. I know you are a VIP, but please take a sec so I have a clue as to what you meant by
" As to the source you cite, it's not about providing more or less correct detail, but specifically about disinformation."
There is no link given anywhere in proximity to that particular phrase on Talk:Jackie Robinson. I'm sure you meant something of significance. Please help me to find out what it might be.Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The commenter to whom I was replying posted "In case you haven't heard of it, Vox ran an article a year ago on "flooding the zone" and how that's a problem because people have limited time and bandwidth". If you search for that quote you will find the comment. As I said, that link is irrelevant to the discussion actually going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Turpin content discussion[edit]

Hello, why were edits about the British folk revival reverted in the page linked above? Certainly mentioning in passing the artists that recorded ballads about the subject is significant in the context of the section of the article that talks about Turpin's cultural legacy. The source given is very interesting IMO and the article benefits from it, so i wanted to know how to better represent notability? YuriNikolai (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YuriNikolai, the source given appears to be a fansite. Do you have more reliable sources demonstrating the significance of that content to the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, looking into the website i believe it qualifies as reliable. The website was started as a fansite, but it claims to have grown into a database with official support by English Folk experts. Even assuming these endorsements aren't legit, which they seem to be judging by everything i read about the website, each entry on it is cross-referenced with several different academic databases of folk songs and the website lists all additional bibliography for claims in a separate Bibliography page. I can, indeed, add links to the books and databases cited in the mainlynorfolk page, but i believe the website itself serves as a better source for having all this information condensed, considering it isn't a website allowing user-generated content. And if you mean the mention of the British folk revival itself ("the significance of that content to the subject"), I'd argue that the mention of these songs being recorded for the first time as part of this movement, which is currently not in the article, is very relevant, otherwise that would hint at this revival not being encyclopedia-worthy, which it is. YuriNikolai (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi YuriNikolai, my concern is not whether the revival itself is encyclopedia-worthy, but rather its significance to this particular subject, ie. Dick Turpin. As you might expect he has appeared in multiple cultural works of various sorts over the years, but we don't have space within the framework of this article to discuss all of those appearances in depth. Given that issue on this and similar articles, an RfC on the topic of cultural mentions found that referencing was required to demonstrate not only that the mention existed. Additionally, this particular article is featured, which carries a requirement for high-quality sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand! Perhaps when i have time I'll start research for a separate article about the cultural work depictions themselves, like how the Vietnam War article is being split into more specific articles. One last question, though: In "[...] found that referencing was required to demonstrate not only that the mention existed.", i got the impression that you meant there was some other requirement besides demonstrating the mention, but what is that req.? Might just be me misreading the comment. In any case, thank you for clarifying the situation and for linking me to that RfC. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YuriNikolai, to demonstrate significance to the subject - see the RfC close. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 mm caliber[edit]

Thanks for reverting that - please also see the revision history of .950 JDJ where the same editor did the same thing and got snippy in edit summaries upon being reverted. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paper Mario: The Origami King/archive1[edit]

If you have the time, could you give a source review (a spot check has already been done) on Paper Mario: The Origami King? It's getting really close to promotion at this point. Le Panini [🥪] 15:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Stumbled across Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 – had no idea it existed. Thank you for a fantastic, interesting and unique article! - Aza24 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021[edit]

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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Arthur C. Neville article[edit]

Hey, wanted to ask about this edit on Arthur C. Neville. This is maybe the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen someone delete Template:Find a Grave from an article in the last couple weeks -- is there some guidance I'm missing? What's the point of the deletion? --Asdasdasdff (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdasdasdff, in that particular case the relevant guidance is WP:LINKVIO - content at the link is copied from a City of Green Bay website with an "all rights reserved" notice. On the broader question, see Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#findagrave_in_general and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I searched "linkvio" and didn't find anything that made sense to me and thought I should just ask. Got it. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sellers and his relationship with Melvyn Douglas[edit]

I noticed you reverted my edit [12] regarding Peter Sellers and Melvyn Douglas regarding it's "significance". The instance of meeting Sellers in Burma during WWII is mentioned in both the page for: Melvyn Douglas#Career and in Being There#Filming. Coincidence? Yes. Insignificant? No. It's not merely a piece of trivia but something Douglas and Sellers purportedly bonded over during the filming of Being There, and as it exists in the other two pages I deemed it worthy of mentioning in Sellers' article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CaffeinAddict, would suggest making your case with additional sources demonstrating significance on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual journals[edit]

BTW, the title of these journals isn't "English Journal/Journal Français", but rather either "English Journal" or "Journal Français". Databases like PROJECT MUSE will display a combined title because they want to show it can be cited as either and generate citations with the combined title because they don't know if they are being cited in French or in English, or simply don't bother choosing which of the two titles to use.

Case in point, if you go at the bottom of the first page of that article, you'll see

  • Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies. All rights reserved.
  • Copyright © Revue d'études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.

And not

  • Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. All rights reserved.
  • Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, the title of that journal is actually "English Journal/Journal Français" - this is not an uncommon practice among Canadian journals, and shouldn't be "corrected" to one language only. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It it not, no. You can even go on [13] where you'll see "Home > Journal of Canadian Studies > List of Issues > Vol. 48, No. 3 > DOI: 10.3138/jcs.48.3.79". In English, you use the English title. In French, you use the French title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, it is, yes. Compare its scope page. The breadcrumb is shortened for convenience, not because that is the official title. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong. They show the title in English, because that is the title of the journal in English. The scope page mentions the French title because those landing there may have seen it cited as the French title, not because it is the 'full' title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That page provides the full, English/French title. Again, this is a pretty common practice among bilingual Canadian journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The full English title is Journal of Canadian Studies, not Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes. Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'Études Canadiennes appears nowhere in the actual journal. See again, the actual article itself, which lists Journal of Canadian Studies and Revue d'études canadiennes separately. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actual article itself has both together at the top of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listed separately, as two distinct titles, one in English, the other in French. This is no different than listing the date on the website as "Fall/automne 2014". In French you would say Automne 2014. In English you would say Fall 2004. Same for listing number/numéro 3. In English you say "number 3", in French you say "numéro 3". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we've hit a brick wall, I've started an RFC on the issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, pending the outcome of your RfC, please restore the previous, stable version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given 'my' version has better bibliographic information, like DOIs and such, I will not. I was looked at putting an {{Under discussion}} tag on the section, but that's apparently not for articles, so I'm still looking for a notice template of some such. If you know of one, feel free to tag the section with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, you can easily copy and paste the two titles without affecting DOIs and such. By the way, your RfC doesn't account for the second title; you might want to address that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments are exactly the same for the second journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why that would be the case given your argument above, since the second has the slashed title in the actual journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, clearly distinct titles, one in French, the other in English. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try scrolling down. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elagabalus[edit]

I'm the only keep vote but even I read the discussion as consensus to delist. (courtesy ping: User:Casliber). DrKay (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the comments re delisting were thorough and reasoned. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence case on titles in citations[edit]

I cannot locate the page where we have guidance on sentence vs title case in titles on citations ... cluestick? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, MOS:TITLECAPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that. I guess we just expect consistency, one way or another? Gog the Mild has been mentoring a potential FAC editor who has made very good progress at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ted Kaczynski/archive1. Would you have time to glance at the citations there just to make sure they are on the right track? The article is looking like it will be well prepared when it presents at FAC, and I already had the nominator jump through some hoops, but maybe just a quick spotcheck from you to see if they are on the right track? I think Gog is still working with him on prose, but the article is close to FAC ready. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wii citation cleanup[edit]

Nikki, the citation cleanup at Wii is proving to be quite a chore, and I need more guidance re things that have been fiddled with in the templates since the days when I used to do extensive citation cleanup at FAR. Wii has a nasty mess of one of everything (missing authors, missing dates, wrong titles, partially linked publishers), but the worst of the mess is a mixture of work= , publisher= , website= and even others, almost none of which are correctly italicized. Rather than approach it as I have been (editing every single citation), I will need to do some of it globally. So, it is clear I can switch all instances of The New York Times, for example, to work= to render italics. Ditto for The Guardian. Both are hard print sources. I believe I switch all instances of BBC News (some of which are listed incorrectly as just BBC) to publisher= as it is not a hard print source and should not be italicized. I will have to check everything that looks like a magazine to see if it is a magazine or a website, that is, whether to use work= or publisher= for italics. Then we get into websites. Engadget is a website. Why do the cite templates italicize websites? To switch it to non-italics, I guess I have to switch website= to publisher= and that solves that. But then it gets tricky with things like Eurogamer. Eurogamer is a website, just like Engadget. So why is our article italicized while Engadget is not? There are issues like this everywhere. This work is going to be horrid; I am looking for a way to search on each source used multiple times and fix them all at once. Advice? @ImaginesTigers and Panini!: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, If it helps at all, I use the find tool (ctrl + F) for this kind of thing. If I search up "publisher=", it shows every instance on where it appears, allowing for me to easily notice them and change them to website if necessary. Panini🥪 15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is the way I am approaching it. Here's another one: Kotaku is a website. Why is our article italicized? Did something change while I was not editing? Websites are not italicized; journals, magazines, newspapers etc are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I would assume that a glaring issue like this would have been mentioned in the past; are you sure you aren't getting it backwards? For now, I'm making changes. Panini🥪 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing the same changes I was planning to do, pending confirmation from Nikkimaria as to whether something has changed in the days since I used to do extensive citation cleanup, as it is quite possible I have missed something. Even if I have missed something, it is not clear to me why some articles about websites are in italics while others are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, these are websites, not journals, magazines, or newspapers: The Verge, CNET. More of same-- why is one of our articles in italics, the other not? Once we get beyond the big ones (which you have done), I am going to have to check each one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: let's all get on the same page before continuing ... sorry I didn't ping you in here, Masem ... Panini, I am willing to do all of this in a coordinated fashion, so let's get sorted first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just remember that the big mess from a year ago on the mass CS1 changes that website names were generally to be italicized, whereas when you had a news agency with a website, like BBC News, that should remain the name of the news publisher without italics (eg using the publisher= field). I'd have to look for this discussion but I am certain that italics for general websites was a net result from it. --Masem (t) 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, some context. I woke up to a threatening email, promising likelihood of same to continue, and little likelihood that the arbs will do anything about it, so please, let's work together here in a coordinated fashion, as I am about to walk, unrelated to Wii or FAR. Don't Need This Shit Kind of Day. Masem, those are my concerns; wherever we have ended up, our own articles are inconsistent. And I suspect we again have bot owners and citation template people forcing their own preferences on citations -- which adds to my About To Walk again. Let's get on the same page; I was asked to clean up the citations, I am willing to do it, but I am Pretty Damn Sick of Wikipedia at the moment. So let's all decide what style to use on this article, as I am going to have to check dozens to hundreds of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a bit of history, it was back in last 2019 that the CS1 template made a change that caused a sea of red to appear in footnotes, leading to a massive amount of complaints against the CS1 team and to this 2019 RFC that concluded that websites generally should be italized in footnotes - but with various cavaets as one can read through). I know for the VG project we've generally followed that for the websites in question on the Wii article (eg Eurogamer, Kotaku, etc.) all being italics before and after that that RFC. --Masem (t) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Masem; I will look at that RFC when in a better frame of mind. And then post a workplan to the FAR talk page before I continue cleaning up. You saw what you and I went through on our recent RFC, and it looks like that is to be what the rest of my WikiDays will look like. Not today. For now, I may just continue with the part of checking titles, authors, linking, etc, leaving the italics issue aside. Or I may just turn off the computer for good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the worst RFCs I've ever seen, and I've been part of what I previously thought were the worst RFCs ever seen. I am unable to determine anything from that mess. No wonder people at FAC are refusing to adjust their citations for consistency; why even try when those running the templates are making it an impossible task. I have no idea what to do next to help out here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, Couldn't we just start another RFC? It's only been a year, but there's obvious disagreement. Panini🥪 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a rather disastrous record when it comes to RFCs. My suggestion is that we just agree on a consistent scheme for this article, and leave the bigger mess to others. But waiting to hear from Nikkimaria ... with the current state of the citation templates, I am reminded why I ALWAYS used to write my citations manually, so they couldn't mess up my citations. And I regret ever having converted to citation templates, which I only did last year. As long as we pick a consistent scheme here, we should be OK. The problem is, when I go to check our articles on the sources, some are in italics and some are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to punt and say "not our problem"; that is, I clean up everything except the italics. We have citation templates and articles at complete odds with MOS:ITALICS and MOS:BADITALICS, and an inconclusive RFC that is too much of a mess to read. This is "out of our hands" territory, and not worth worrying about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Panini, Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italics_2 may be of interest. Sandy, what counts as a website and what counts as a publisher is complicated, especially since in many cases they have the same name - this accounts for some of the differences in article usage. I would suggest doing exactly as you propose: make things consistent within this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another discussion with a conclusion that is clear as mud and a conversation dominated by MOS warriors. I am no less clear on exactly what I should I do next than I was last night. The only advancement is that I now know that our articles are inconsistent as well our citations, so I can't go by what the article has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out. When multiple discussions of this matter involve editors who are threatening me, or who have in the past (that is, none of you), I simply don't need this. I will copy in the corrected medical text to Wii, and leave this to the rest of you to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is clear now why I am done rubbing elbows with MOS warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm having my own concerns with citation template amendments at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two of them together are one of the reasons I stopped editing, If I want to keep editing, I just cannot go there. In short, I never should have converted the articles I wrote to citation templates. The reason I initially used manual citations was so articles I wrote would not become inconsistently formatted based on the whims of the three or four editors who dominate citation templates and MOS discussions. Usually with unpleasantry included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help on Moorgate tube crash[edit]

Hi there,

An editor keeps removing sourced content on the Moorgate tube crash article, and I don't think they are right to as the information is sourced to the Me, My Dad & Moorgate documentary. I've seen you've edited on the page recently, could you perhaps give me an indication of whether the info is okay to be there or not? 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I would suggest opening a discussion on the article's talk page. The fact that information can be sourced doesn't necessarily mean it must be included, so it would be best to make your case there as to why you believe it should. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll do that, I think the information doesn't have to be in the lead but seems wrong to say the source is not acceptable for the body of the text. I tried sending a message to the IP that removes it but no reply. 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP is dynamic it's possible the person behind the edit wouldn't have seen your message. It's easier to message named users than IPs, both for that reason and because you can ping them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You received no reply because I was opening a thread on the talk page explaining the problem with what you were trying to do. I’ve provided a link to the template needed, and I’m happy to help format it if you can’t get it to work properly. 109.249.185.61 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave and Jack Prince (singer)[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, I understand that Find a Grave does not require references, and it is not considered a reliable source for information, but a high percentage of deceased twentieth-century entertainers have Find a Grave in the list of External links, so I thought that it was acceptable to include such a link. (Just now I looked at articles for the first 10 deceased performers I could think of, and 50% had a Find a Grave link.)

When I created the new article Jack Prince (singer) I knew that I could not find a photograph of him that would be without copyright restrictions, and so my thinking was that providing a link to Find a Grave would also provide a link to a photograph of him. I understand that no article "belongs" to me, and other editors are free to change anything they feel needs changing. I do not want to obtain a reputation as a troublesome editor, and so I will make no further attempts to attach External links to above-named article. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karenthewriter, his IMDb page has a photograph of him - you could link that if you wanted. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I'm confused by your reply, for I said I will make no further attempts to attach External links to the article. If others wish to expand the article they are free to do so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karenthewriter Karenthewriter (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 42[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

  • New EBSCO collections now available
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
  • Library Card input requested
  • Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Fables (band)[edit]

Nikkimaria, I hope you are well. I have just finished copyediting The Fables (band), and was made uncomfortable by its closeness to a Canadian Bands source I found—said source had not been included in the references, though it is now. I have done my best to put things in my own words, but I'd like someone who is not familiar with the article to take a look and make sure there is no close paraphrasing remaining. (Not that I'm all that familiar with it: I knew nothing about the band before I started my copyedit.)

Thanks for anything you can do (and there's no rush): if further editing is required, I'll be happy to do it, but right now I'm just not seeing any issues. (If you can point out all that remains to address, if anything, I'd appreciate it; if it's a quick fix, by all means do it yourself rather than have to type out instructions that would take you longer.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, I made a slight tweak on paraphrasing but it's otherwise okay. I would suggest directly quoting the bit about more original works to encourage creativity, but I'm not sure about the reliability of the CanadianBands site - do you know anything more about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. All I know about CanadianBands is what's on the main page: it was created (and maintained) as a labor of love by Dan Brisebois—the site lists no bonafides for him or sourcing for his work—who died this past October. (I put a post about the sourcing in general on Talk:The Fables (band) after I finished the copyedit.) So I'd feel hesitant to quote that statement. Oddly, I feel better about the actual quotes on the page, since it seems likely they were taken from an interview with Simmons or from a response to a query to him by the site's author. It looks like someone's added both "primary sources" and "unreliable sources" to the article subsequent to your edit; I can't argue with either one, since I noted both on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI where I mentioned you[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mathsci Iban violation. Thank you. You aren't really involved in any way, but I'm notifying you as I mentioned you because Mathsci mentioned you in their defence on their talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, IMO the other editor's contributions at that article were far more problematic, but I don't have much to say on the IBAN issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elzéar Goulet[edit]

Yeah a minute after I removed that, I realized something's weird with the metismuseum PDFs. Once you look at one, any others I followed the link to seemed to only load the original, even when I directly copy/pasted the URL in my browser. So I was looking at a totally different PDF even though my browser was showing the URL to the correct one. Super weird. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Might be worth changing the link to the landing page for that source, rather than directly to the PDF? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, just in case it is a common thing and not my browser ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Handel[edit]

I began a discussion on project opera. The image of old Handel on Rinaldo is misleading. That article is supposed to show our best content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I don't think it makes sense to have no image of the composer at all. Is there a different image of Handel that you think would be more appropriate? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss that with project opera. Most articles about operas I know have no image of the composer, - only if nothing else is available. Compare L'Orfeo, The Bartered Bride ... - The doubtful image of a young Handel is on the talk of Rinaldo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image has appeared in the article for over a decade, as far as I can tell. If the only potential alternative doubtful, I don't think it should be included. It seems also that many high-quality opera articles do include an image of the composer, eg Carmen, Falstaff (opera), Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, L'Ange de Nisida... so don't see why it would be a problem to continue to do so here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but please say so at the opera talk (where I already explained that yes, some articles show the composer, but only if around the age of composition - preferredly a different image than the lead of the composer which anybody can see in a click - and in the history section. The first not true for this Handel pic which I therefore removed. - For Bach, we face a similar problem, we have only two images, one doubtful and young, one old, while he wrote most compositions middle-aged. Therefore, a few compositions show the Young, and a few late compositions show the Old, and the others do without. - Handel: yes, for over a decade we bored our readers by an image they had seen before. We can do better. Will you please help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to include an image of the composer, and one recognizable to readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We know, but it really isn't between you and me, but project talk. Thank you for having joined. Personally, I believe Mozart and Handel don't need an image to be recognized. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February flowers[edit]

happy Valentine's! - As for BWV 1, I don't expect major changes. Heard BWV 159 today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This wasn't the standard when it was promoted" - sure, because it wasn't even a possibility in 2009. The template infobox opera was created in 2013, Brianboulton approached me using it that same year (for L'Arianna). It is the standard in Carmen, the Monteverdi operas (featured topic), The Bartered Bride, Nixon in China, all while he was alive. Please revert your revert, or we really discuss. You probably know that I asked all arbitration candidates the same question.

Also: this was the promoted version, and yours also differs from it. But please please please lets not return to that old thing. This is 2021. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This goes for Agrippina (opera) and Rinaldo (opera). A discussion will be on project opera, if necessary. I hope not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In our conversations before, like here, you've expressed a desire for consistency across articles - in design, in citation format, even in organization. I respect that you believe "quality" is a certain thing only, but as the diff you cited in your question said: "live and let live". Our rules do not impose a single standard for "quality" in these matters, and no other article nor project discussion changes that. I see beauty in diversity. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you misunderstood me. Consistency across articles is of rather minor concern to me. I will not add an infobox to an opera that Smerus created, and I don't mind. Brianboulton's articles, however, are quite a different story. He approached me - in 2013, right after the arb case - offering a compromise infobox, and I'd like to see his intentions to be followed through for Handel as well. He supported the unifying Handel template, but that template is gone, so no longer an argument. - If that is not yet convincing, perhaps the close of the Talk:Ian Fleming RfC may help the cause of those in favour of structured information in addition (not competition) to the prose? - I'd prefer to avoid another infobox discussion, - always a waste of time as long as I can remember, with the exception of Talk:Siegfried which I enjoyed, - thank you for that one. I give you one more day to reflect the interests of those who don't read English so well, are vision-impaired, need something quickly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His intentions? We know that he supported the Handel template after the alternative was available and after the compromise that you cite, and indeed that he reverted the same additions on those same articles. I don't know how we could interpret that context as intending to support what you propose, or how reverting his reverts would respect his work. If you would want to avoid another discussion, why start one? "Live and let live". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have a language problem. Yes, he supported the Handel sidebar. But that option is gone. From all the other works mentioned, and from him coming especially to my talk page when the rest of the Wikipedia world only watched out for me breaking restrictions, tells me a lot about him wanting to find a compromise. He wrote an article in the Signpost then. It says: use infoboxes prudently. It doesn't say: don't use them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He had the option to allow the alternative to stand, when you put it in; he chose not to. "Compromise" doesn't mean "must always use", doesn't mean there is only one standard for quality - "live and let live" is a compromise. Wouldn't you agree? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. So to conclude: The editor in question is not here to defend the sidebar any more, as he did in life - reverting his revert does not seem to respect his intentions, nor avoid reopening debate. But of course this page remains open if you want to do so. Anyways, I've added myself - although it does not seem he himself was ever there! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the first reply. I wont do anything until next week, and possibly nothing, because - as Voce once said - editor relations also have value, Brian is dead, and you are alive. Can we look at it from another angle, then? - An infobox is by now the normal thing to have for an opera article. Its 1,477 inclusions include the masterworks of the genre, and the masterworks of Wikipedia articles (FAs), which are all Brian's works. I don't see any good reason to exclude Rinaldo and Agrippina from that company any longer, now that the sidebar issue is settled. - Different topic: are there open questions in the FAC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than his own actions and your own pledge? As I said, what other articles do is no rationale, and no single required quality standard.
I will have a look at the FAC later today. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)ay. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_41&oldid=1034989835"