User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 37

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you for the seriousness and care and rewriting of article on librarian educator and author. Also for all you have written to make Wikipedia a trusted resource. Kmccook (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver attack[edit]

I love this article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 11:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing question[edit]

Hi. I want to add derivatives (I intend to photoshop them to make the backgrounds transparent) of the following images to Gloucestershire Regiment, which is currently in FAC. Before I do, would you mind advising if the licensing is acceptable?

Factotem (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Factotem (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018[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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michelle Garvey[edit]

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC) This report indicates that there were signs of sexual assault and although Michelle was clothed, she was missing things like her bra and her shoes.[reply]

www.khou.com/news/investigations/investigations-who-killed-michelle/408484935

This Month in GLAM: December 2017[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.

Shango--"rm non-RS"?[edit]

Thank you for your recent change to the the Shango article--spot on. However, the for the edit summary "rm non-RS" is pretty opaque in meaning, and I've been around awhile. Would it be possible to use an edit summary that might make sense to a new editor or someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia? Thanks again. Prburley (talk)

List of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles additional documentaries[edit]

Hi, why did you redirected this to the The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles? Is there some copyright issue? I would really like to see a page of the documentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhu Gopal (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madhu Gopal, simple lists of titles are not typically a copyright issue, but this topic would be better covered within another article to provide context and appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay tnx. But why delete it? I was using this on a weekly base. Why could you not expand on it? Instead of deleting it? Also the sourcing seems fine with me. There simply is no other sourcing, thus my reason of putting it on wiki, there is simply no info on this. These documentaries are amazing, and have never been given proper attention. George Lucas put a lot of work in them. Please reconsider... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhu Gopal (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madhu Gopal, the simple answer is that Wikipedia is not the platform you're looking for - it's an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, which means that things on which there are "no info" or which haven't received attention from secondary sources are best covered elsewhere. If you'd like to refer to the list, I'd suggest saving it somewhere, either offline or on another site. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-rs[edit]

Seriously? Was that necessary? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What was not reliable about them? The info on them is correct as far as I can see. They confirm the info stated in the article, and provide more details. I tend to trust fansites more than mainstream news articles, because fans actually care about the subject. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our sourcing guidelines take the opposite approach - user-generated sites are generally not accepted as reliable, while mainstream news articles more often are. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Hey, would you be interested in reviewing my FAC Margaret (singer)? Regards. ArturSik (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Artur, I don't speak Polish so wouldn't be comfortable assessing the article's sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is okay, I absolutely understand that. Thank you. PS. how sources in languages other than English are assesed then when it comes to FAC? do you think it might be a problem and may result in the article not being promoted ? ArturSik (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem policy-wise, but it may be an issue in terms of getting reviewers engaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

Metadata on the March[edit]

From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost.

SVG pedestrian crosses road
Zebra crossing/crosswalk, Singapore

Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.

Links[edit]

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not display on talk page[edit]

Category:Year of birth missing (living people), how would I access the list of people missing dates? What links here from the template brings up mostly non-people. --RAN (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Are you looking for Category:Date_of_birth_missing_(living_people), or something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I see it now when I scroll down, thanks! --RAN (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinckley article[edit]

Thanks for your efforts on the Gordon B. Hinckley article. Knowing that WP:LINK has a lot to it, I think it would be helpful, at least to me, to better understand the concern about the link in the article is. Thanks again! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristensenMJ: Per WP:SOB, we're to avoid placing links next to each other in that way, as visually they appear to be only a single link, which is potentially confusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so very much! That is helpful! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Image question[edit]

Hi Nikki, is there a way to make the infobox in this article display a wider image. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Fixed? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Truly. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red[edit]

Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.

New: "Black women"

New: "Mathematicians and statisticians"

New: "Geofocus: Island women"

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 26[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

First of all, thanks for doing the image review of Sasuke Uchiha. Sorry if you are busy, but I expanded the image description Here. If it still doesn't work, I'll just remove it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: As mentioned there, it's workable as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • sweating* So it still needs more stuff? I mean, the first sketch image is less detailed so I don't know what else it lacks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that means it's fine as it is :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool! Then shouldn't that make the article pass the image review? Thanks for the comments. I learned more stuff about the images.Tintor2 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google books links[edit]

you mentioned Google books links as a sort of an exception to the rule in your comments on WT:FAC. Do you consider them an exception because they are relatively more stable, or because they appear inside {{cite book}} templates and so constitute a special case, or...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both? The primary purpose of a GBooks link (in most cases) is as a convenience link for access to an originally print publication - it's not itself an original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks. I am still working on that script and on the relevant explanatory page. I hope you'll be kind enough to look at it again at some later date, after I get forex the hyphen thing sorted...may take a day or two or three, because I spend a lot of time chasing an under-ten-yr-old around the house. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Change topic: Website with no publication date but has copyright date which agrees with dates seen vie "view page source": use copyright date, or use |date=n.d. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright date is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mishmar HaEmek redux[edit]

Nikkimaria, I pinged you from this nomination, forgetting that pings typically don't get through to you. Can you please stop by and let us know where this stands? It looks like Bolter21 will be "semi-retired" up until when his military service ends in November 2019, so if the close paraphrasing or copyvio still hasn't been dealt with, it may soon be time to mark this for closure, but he has edited today, so this may be a period when something can be accomplished. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: As mentioned there, it looks like there hasn't been any further progress since December - this should likely be closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Apologies: I didn't see your reply—I think the Approvals page didn't refresh though I thought it had. Since that's the case, I'm going to mark it for closure now; I agree with your assessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there were a number of edits on December 22 that seem to have changed phrasing and other issues that were in response to your previous posts; at least two have an edit summary of "copyvio", and others reduced the size of the article. It's those that might make the difference between closure and asking for more work. Can I ask you to take another look at those edits to see if they helped enough? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BlueMoonset, I saw those and IMO they are not sufficient to allow the article to pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I appreciate you checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the nineteen image reviews you did during January. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as Hub[edit]

One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites.

Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.

Links[edit]

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Catesby[edit]

You have not added an image of Mark Catesby - it is an image of Sir Hans Soane by Mark Catesby! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedster007 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tedster007, I'm not sure what you're referring to - I didn't add any image to Mark Catesby. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake - I must have clicked on the wrong name. Did you post the image originally on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedster007 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wikidata Fetch[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for reverting some of those awful "Wikidata fetch" infoboxes added by 2003:EC:BBC4:941E:FC3B:23B4:53D0:6D60. I personally have no problem with real infoboxes, and replaced the Wikidata one on Alphonse Royer (an article I largely wrote) with a real one. There are still quite a few left of the IP's creations left. I might get around to making proper boxes for them in the next few days. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Mahoney[edit]

I read this Template:Infobox person/doc, and I'm still confused. It only makes sense to go by Blackpool, England, not Blackpool, Lancashire, just like we wouldn't list Chicago, Illinois as Chicago, Cook County, so I added this dispute to the talk page of John Mahoney.

No, it doesn’t make sense. There are two Blackpools in Devon alone. In Britain, counties are administrative regions and used in the same way that you use states in the US.

I copied this from that source you keep telling me to read:

"Place of birth: city, administrative region, country. Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post 1976). Do not use a flag template, coat of arms, or other icon. Omit unnecessary or redundant details. For example, it is not necessary to state: New York City, New York, United States when New York City, US conveys essentially the same information more concisely. Countries should generally not be linked. For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state; for United Kingdom locations, the constituent countries of the UK are sometimes used instead, when more appropriate in the context. For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text. For subsequent places (of death, etc.) it is not necessary to repeat jurisdictional details or links for the same place name."

England would be the administrative region. I even browsed the Lancashire article, and clicked on random people, and literally no one is listed under "Lancashire" on their infoboxes, but rather, "England", such as Billy Fury and Brian Epstein; the only time Lancashire seems to be used is when said person was exclusive to England (just like how American infoboxes say the city and state, but not the country). I don't know, but anyway, I added a discussion to the John Mahoney article. Dpm12 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2018[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.

Advice[edit]

Hi Nikki, hope you're well. Could you pls check out File:RAAFAirBoard1930.jpg? The article it's from (William Anderson (RAAF officer)) passed ACR long ago, and the licensing was considered fine then, but I now want to crop two of the subjects for another article and would like to see if you think the permission still passes muster. It's pretty clearly an official RAAF or Australian government image, but it's not credited as such in the source (The Third Brother); it appears to have been supplied to the author of book by the daughter of one of the subjects (Joyce) -- so not sure if what we have is good enough, or if PD-AustralianGov would be valid, or something else. There are several other images from that book I'd like to use, all clearly PD-Australia as they were taken before 1946, but not clearly Australian government and not with any certainty published early enough to qualify for PD-1996... Thanks as always for your work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I would think AustralianGov would be the best bet for that particular image - you're right, it's pretty clearly an official image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've seen people changing the 2-col reflist code to "30em" (like you did here [1]), is that the current standard? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I went and looked at the documentation. :) The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018[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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on Ultraman article[edit]

Hey there, I've noticed you've edited on the Ultraman page before. There is an issue on the talk page that requires your two cents on the matter. Long story short: an edit war broke out. From one Ultraman fan to another, your two cents would be greatly appreciated and it would bring a fresh perspective on the issue and contribute to what benefits the article. Cheers! Armegon (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Germanicus images[edit]

I have a question about the exact tags I should use. All of the remaining four photographs are of statues/monuments made nearly 2000 years ago in Italy, with the exception of the one in Germany of Arminius made in the 1800s. Italy doesn't have panorama freedom, but copyright expires after 70 years of death: does this mean the photographs are fine, or are they all in violation of Italian law? Germany does allow panorama so the image of Arminius should be fine, but I still don't know what tags apply to panorama at all. This is my first time dealing with these issues and I feel really ignorant about this. I saw that they all had share alike from the uploaders and assumed that the images must have been fine. Sorry for being a bother. SpartaN (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpartaN, for very old objects from most countries you just need to verify they are originals not replicas and include a PD tag for them (eg. this one). Italian objects are a bit more complicated - see this explanation at Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I was overthinking it. I butchered my explanation on the review page, but there are two reasons File:Bronze_statue_of_Germanicus_at_Amelia_April_2016.jpg and File:RomaAraPacis_ProcessioneSudParticolare.jpg are PD: it's been 71 years after creators death for each, and: 'Italian law permits to publish for free pictures of panorama on websites for "teaching or scientific purpose", but only "no profit".' SpartaN (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's part of the problem. Neither Commons nor Wikipedia considers "no profit" (non-commercial) images to be 'free'. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ara Pacis is not on public property, and is in a museum funded internationally. It's not in government ownership, and the creator died nearly 2000 years ago. For that reason it is PD. The bronze statue of Germanicus was unearthed in the 1960s and was placed in a privately owned museum. The owner of which never claimed copyright. Again, the creator died ages ago. People who find ancient statues cannot claim copyright over them in Italy. Are these not then PD? SpartaN (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC, the situation is unclear to me. I think we would be okay treating them as PD, but I also think they would still qualify as "cultural heritage assets". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording at FoP Italy seems to suggest that it's only a cultural heritage site if it is state owned, but the real question is whether or not the following applies to objects within any and all museums (including the privately owned ones in which both objects reside) as well: "The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state owned things with some artistic, historic, archeologic or ethnoantropologic interest; libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections.." It's definitely a grey area. It might just be best to eschew the images for the time being. SpartaN (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Nightswimming (Awake) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 31, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 31, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red[edit]

Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osbert Lancaster[edit]

I'm importuning kind colleagues who contributed to Sir Osbert's peer review to look in at his FAC page if so inclined. Perfectly understand if not, naturally. Tim riley talk 09:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a FUR[edit]

I had a question about the FUR on the one remaining photo in the Borodino-class battlecruiser FAC that you haven't probably noticed. Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeVeque Tower[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope you are well. I'm here with the begging bowl again. This photo [File:Deshler-Wallick Hotel in Columbus, Ohio.jpg] appears the above, which I'm reviewing at GAR. Sorry I can't provide a direct link, but I don't know how to stop it appearing as the image on your page! It's licensed on Commons as PD US. I think the publisher was actually the E.C.Kropp Co., rather than the K.C.Kropp Co. They operated from 1907 to 1956. The hotel's name changed in 1952, so the postcard must pre-date that. The hotel manager mentioned on the reverse was there in 1927, which gives an approximate date, although he might have been there a long time. Does it matter that we don't know the date or the artist? Any advice much appreciated. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi KJP1. We know the postcard was published by 1952, in the US. Based on eBay results for similar postcards [2], it was likely late 1930s or early 1940s, and without a copyright notice. That would let us use {{PD-US-no notice}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, and many thanks. It would be a poorer article without it. I'll change the designation in Commons. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewing barnstar[edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the twenty image reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Butcher family information.[edit]

You do not have consensus, nor have you provided an explanation. Please reply on the article talk page. Dankarl (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dankarl: I did indeed provide an explanation: the "survived by" phrasing is to be avoided. In addition, the content at issue was not sourced, and cannot be restored without sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for the welcome message!!

Spartycat (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

I am not sure I really understand how the infoboxes work. For example when {{infobox person/Wikidata |fetchwikidata=ALL |onlysourced=no }} works and displays information, changing the onlysourced parameter to =no will blank most the infobox, normally just leaving the image, even if there are sources in the article. I presume then that I am missing something. Please help. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves: If you add sources supporting the statements to the corresponding Wikidata item, the parameters will display. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I get it, add the sources on Wikidata. Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courses Modules are being deprecated[edit]

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux Talk 15:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2018[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.

Photo removed[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I'm still trying to figure-out Wikipedia and photos. I contacted the Cdn folksinger/artist Heather Bishop, and she sent me a publicity photo, to which she holds the copyright. I added it, specifying that there was no free equivalent. I didn't notice that it was removed, but then got the "orphan photo" message, and tried to add it back:

(cur | prev) 12:21, 8 March 2018‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,447 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (None of what you say is relevant. This image violates NFCC#1. Wikipedia-specific use authorization is insufficient, per WMF policy. Undid revision 829316117 by LisaRae7 (talk)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 22:14, 7 March 2018‎ LisaRae7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,495 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (Undid revision 828737612 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk). It is not an album cover; there is no other free image of Bishop available; the subject (and owner of the image) approved the use of this image.) (undo) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 13:18, 4 March 2018‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,447 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (nonfree image in BLP infobox) (undo | thank)

What are my options, in terms of using this photo? [Thank-you, as always, for your help. Lisa] LisaRae7 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa! Unfortunately we can't generally use non-free images to illustrate BLPs - the principle is that as long as the person is alive, a free equivalent could potentially be created. If you can't find an existing one, any possibility Bishop would be willing to release a photo under a compatible license? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice on image copyright[edit]

Article not published yet.

Please see image of Rev. Henry H. Parker on p. 90.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4505816;view=1up;seq=106

He died in 1927. Caroline Parker Green was his sister, and I don't know if she had any children. He never married and had no direct descendants. This book was published in 1945. There are some newspaper obits of him that use a dark, grainy version of this image. This is all I know about the image.

I believe I can use this as a non-free rationale image on the article. But I'm also wondering if this image could instead be loaded on Commons under a public domain image. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: I don't see a renewal for that particular book in the Stanford database, so assuming that was its first publication then its copyright should be expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st West Virginia Cavalry[edit]

Hello and thank you for reviewing 1st West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. I am ignorant of what needs to be done about the medal and copyright. I changed the description to "This medal, which belonged to a relative of mine, is the West Virginia Class I "Honorably Discharged" medal given to West Virginia Union soldiers in 1866 in appreciation of their service in the American Civil War. The artist listed as the main person responsible for the medal's design is J. Sigel. The West Virginia Division of Culture and History has more background on these medals." The medal belongs to me, and I took the picture. My relative probably received it in 1866. Should the date be changed to 1866? TwoScars (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TwoScars. In the US, freedom of panorama covers only buildings, not smaller 3D works like medals. The practical implication of that is, whenever you've got a picture of a US 3D work, there are actually two copyrights to consider: the photo, and the work itself. The file currently has a licensing tag identifying the license under which you as the photographer have released the photo. What it needs now is a tag explicitly identifying that the medal itself is in the public domain because of its age. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—I think I fixed it. TwoScars (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018[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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Milestone for mix'n'match[edit]

Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal.

Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders.

These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more.

For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading.

Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite!

Links[edit]

3D printing
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image question[edit]

Re Wikipedia:Peer review/Mud March (Suffragists)/archive1, where you left a brief comment. Can I ask you your opinion on the public domain status or otherwise of File:Philippa Strachey in 1921 (cropped).jpg. This image was in the article for a long while. I recently removed it, because according to the source image its copyright is held by the National Portrait Gallery. It has been reinstated, presumably on the basis of the licencing. Do you think we are entitled to use this image without permission? A reply on the peer review page (link above)Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata "Fetch"[edit]

Thanks for fixing György Ligeti. Every so often Wikidata enthusiasts go on a rampage adding those awful "fetch" infoboxes, generally picking a a whole category or alphabetical group to adorn at once. I also convert them when I find them. There's not much else we can do, I guess, except to fix them when we find them. Wholesale removal just results in them returning later to re-add. Grrrr! Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Infobox person/doc edits[edit]

Hi there! I just saw that you reverted by edits on Infobox person/doc ... I changed the following:

  • New York City, U.S. to New York City, New York, U.S. (or US)

I did this because the parameter above clearly states: city, administrative region, country. Thus it should be, as per the example in the Infobox person, the latter. Can you point me to where the former is correct? Genuinely interested. LivinRealGüd (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LivinRealGüd. The US vs U.S. issue is covered by MOS:US, which indicates that while the version with periods is acceptable, the version without should be the default. As for inclusion of NY with NYC, this has been discussed on the talk page numerous times, most recently here, which is why I suggested you ought to discuss on talk before making that change. Broadly, there is a general consensus that the "city, region, country" format need not be slavishly followed when not necessary for understanding - for example, you almost always see "Paris, France", rather than "Paris, Île-de-France, France". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, thank you for explaining it to me. All the best. :) LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice (again)[edit]

Hi again Nikki, I'm thinking of taking Thomas White (Australian politician) to ACR. Rechecking images, I think the licensing for the infobox pic and the "White as MP" portrait (not one that I added) are problematic. With the former, although clearly out of Australian copyright, we have the usual issue of not knowing a publication date, so PD-1996 probably doesn't apply, and I'm not sure if we can say that the photographer, Spencer Shier, was 'official', even though he was apparently known for his portraits of politicians and military people, among others. The info on the latter image seems even less promising if anything. I don't think we need both but I'd like to use at least one of them, depending on which you think has the best chance of passing muster licence-wise. Appreciate your time as always! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: What about using this? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry Nikki, I didn't mean for you to go searching for another pic, just to let me know if you think it'd be too hard to license one or both of these -- I guess you're saying it is though, and that the new one would be PD-AustralianGov owing to the author? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the second. To the first... are we to interpret in the catalogue record for the first image that it was published by the library? That would have been around the time it opened. For the second image, any idea what the "11th edition" annotation refers to? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, I'm blind -- it does say "published" doesn't it? Well why not, perhaps they had a photographic exhibition of federal members of parliament -- do we need to second-guess what looks like a clear-cut statement by the institution? In this case the existing PD-1996 licence would be valid, no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, since it says "published" only and not "created/published" like eg. LOC tends to do, I would say it's fair to interpret that as "published". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again on the same subject, Nikki, but since expanding the White article further I have room for another image -- could get a reality check on this one? Again no publishing info at the National Library but, despite the poor quality of the newspaper image, I'd bet my bottom dollar it's this one, published in 1940, which would make it PD-1996 -- would you concur or do you think it's doubtful? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reasonable assumption. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Hodgkinson's Daily Mail Online columns[edit]

Nikkimaria, I have restored Liz Hodgkinson's Daily Mail Online columns which you inexcusably deleted on Saturday. Liz Hodgkinson is and for 50 years was primarily a journalist, most famously for the Daily Mail, and her online columns are her best known work to millions of people. You did not delete the Bibliography of her 45 or so books, so there is absolutely no excuse for deleting this sample of her most recent few years of columns, since she is writing few nowadays so it will not grow much more but is mostly still of interest to readers. Please do not even think of deleting this section again; to do so was almost vandalism! Iph (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iph: Please calm down. That you happen to disagree with a particular action does not make it vandalism. Let's continue this discussion on the article talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 100[edit]

How do I get get different page numbers to a ref in your style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking, could you clarify? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In harv citation, I have the possibility to point the reader to a specific page for facts mentioned in the same book on different pages. "Your" dj ref begins at 790, but most facts are on 792. I ask generally how to do it. (Will need p 790 also, when expanding more.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the range is only three pages, it oughtn't be a problem to simply have |pages=790–792. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it bad enough to have to search on one page? - Seriously: In a FA, I easily have to refer to two chapters in the introduction, and several cantatas, - how would I do I do that with your style?
Honestly...no? Three or four pages is not a lot to look through IMO.
You can cite chapters or sections individually rather than using multiple page ranges. Alternatively, you could use something like {{rp}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find harv so much simpler. Francis Schonken even links to the specific page for each one. - Enjoy what you do, I don't want to make your talk longer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next: I think we should not use a source with an author named "'Blue' Gene Tyranny". Mincham is problematic enough, according to Brianboulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No ;) - It looked like a Wikipedia user name to me, - sorry about that. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 at Women in Red[edit]

Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pollard[edit]

Okay, why did you remove what I did all day on the Michael J. Pollard article? there was a template asking for citations, so I gave them, then I removed template... and then *you* removed all my citations?

Are you gonna put the "citations needed" template back then? I mean what was it there for then?

what was THAT all about? I am old and it takes me all day to type that much, and then its gone just like that--my whole day's work? why? the citations were in the same vein as what was already there? I tried to stay in that tradition? What was wrong with them?

Nice way to tell people their contributions aren't welcome. *sigh* very very upsetting. This is not a hospitable environment. PB57 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PB57, the templates flag the need for reliable citations - IMDb is not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of content development Suggestion[edit]

Hi! I notice you have a tendency to make minor or controversial edits instead of focusing on content creation. Many people on English Wikipedia thing that the "to-do" list of notable articles is short because English is the largest Wiki, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Perhaps you should cconsider writing some of these articles into English instead of minor reformatting (look at Wikipedia from the eyes of a non-editor; chances are, they don't even notice a 10px infobox image size difference)

Just some things that need writing:

  • Uzeir Abduramanov - A Crimean Tatar Hero of the Soviet Union and decorated veteran of WWII that was exiled to Central Asia for his ethnicity despite being a warhero. In SIX languages, very notable, but not on EN Wiki.
  • Matryona Necheporchukova - One of only four women in history to be a full cavalier of the Order of Glory
  • Nadezhda Zhurkina - One of only four women in history to be a full cavalier of the Order of Glory, radio operator in the 99th Guards separate reconnaissance aviation regiment
  • Nina Petrova - One of only four women in history to be a full cavalier of the Order of Glory, WWII sniper, killed in action
  • Danute Staniliene - First woman in history to be a full cavalier of the Order of Glory, machine-gunner in the 167th Infantry Regiment
  • Murad Ozdoev - Ingush WWII flying ace, was not awarded Hero of Soviet Union and dishonorably discharged solely because of his ethnicity and forcebly deported to Central Asia. Awarded title Hero of the Russian Federation in 1995. (stub)


Just a few ideas. For more, see here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. However, keep in mind that creating articles is not the only valid means of contributing to the encyclopedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two others: Expanding them and removing incorrect/outdated information. All others are not very necessary since bots can fix other issues. Bots already revert more obvious cases of vandalism and are getting better at it; bots will eventually take care of all the minor edits but people will always be needed to write prose.--PlanespotterA320 (talk)
...I think you are vastly overestimating the capability of bots, at least for the near future. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh! A Nikkimaria-bot! That would be so so nifty! Why don't you get on writing that Planespotter? Let everyone know when you have something ready to beta test. I feel pretty confident that there are a lot of people who would be very happy to have access to infinite Nikkimaria at the push of a button. --Xover (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]
I'm not a bot writer, I only know wikitext. But there are plenty of people that would LOVE to write a bot for you to quickly fix small issues upon identification so you can get to writing articles. Just file a bot request at Bot requests. Also, you really should get familiarized with AWB or JWB, to make many edits in short amount of time. And there's some Swedish nerd who created an article-writing bot on Swedish Wikipedia called Lsjbot. Due to things about the English language, we won't ever get an Lsjbot and we have to write our own articles. But looking at your edit history, I'm sure someone will create a bot for you so you can get to writing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that you didn't include bot-writing in your list of "valid" contributions! In all seriousness though, bots are great for formulaic tasks (including writing simple articles), but less great for anything requiring human judgment. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are administrative and not articles of themselves. I was only refering to article-based contributions, not tech development, admin. Bots aren't even written in Wikitext.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious six years![edit]

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data changes to all sources on Bob Nygaard article.[edit]

Hello. I just noticed your edit to the sources on my Bob Nygaard article. I see that you deleted all of the Website parameters I added using the citation wizard. I always add that parameter, but if I am wasting my time I'd like to know that for sure, and why it is wrong to use it. Please explain. Thanks. RobP (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: What I did was move much of the content you had included in |publisher= into |website=. Per the template documentation, |publisher= shouldn't be used for publication titles, such as newspapers and magazines. I'm not sure why the wizard would add additional content in |website=, but it's not correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Changes to the Hong Kong Cafe Article[edit]

Hello. Thank you for the edits to the Infobox on the Hong Kong Cafe article. I think that helped. I have a question about your deleting the references to wikia for the dates of some of the shows at the Hong Kong Cafe. I believe there is a case to be made that wikia is not a reliable source, but if you checked the links posted, they lead to images of flyers for the shows mentioned. This is an image of source documents for punk shows. I am not sure what would constitute better sourcing for who was scheduled to play on a particular night. On this basis, I would advocate keeping the citation of wikia for those shows. Thanks, Grglndr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grglndr (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grglndr, the problem with those is that Wikia does not have the right to host those images - see WP:LINKVIO. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018[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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia with Lewy bodies[edit]

Nikki, I have completely rewritten DLB, and if I can find some independent, third-party sources for writing the "History" section, it could be close to FAC ready. Eric, Ceoil, Johnbod and Colin are combing through it now. Might you have a look at the images? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, they look pretty good. Ideally I'd want to see a data source to support the accuracy of File:Haloperidol-3D-vdW.png, and a more appropriate description for File:Robin_Williams_(6451536411)_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, that was fast!! OK, I think I'll switch out that Haldol image, because it's greek to me (similar on the APOE image-- I have no idea what that is). How do I address the need for a "more appropriate description" on Robin Williams? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is File:Haloperidol_(Haldol).jpg? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That one's fine. For the Williams image... it looks like perhaps someone has pasted an entire movie review into the image description? Really all that is needed is something like "Robin Williams at X on Date". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, yes, I was looking for that as well, and couldn't find it. How about if I just use another image of him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, how about File:Robin_Williams_2011a.jpg ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Nikki! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, does File:Immunostaining (brown) of alpha-synuclein in Lewy Bodies and Lewy Neurites in the neocortex of a patient with Lewy Body Disease.jpg pass muster? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Nikkimaria ... turns out the other one was from a Parkinson's patient, while this one is a Lewy dementia patient, so I swapped. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

The 100 Skins of the Onion[edit]

Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.

Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.

Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF.

Red onion cross section

From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

Links[edit]

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenize Wikipedia[edit]

Hello!

I'm reaching out to you today to let you know about a project the Yukon Arts Centre is doing, April 28th 2018, called Indigenize Wikipedia.
Valerie Salez is spear heading a project titled Conversations. This New Chapter project centres around activating a document held in the archives of the Trondek Hwechin Heritage Department (The Han Gwich’in Peoples Government in Dawson City, Yukon). The document contains the minutes of an impromptu meeting between Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau and five Yukon First Nations leaders in August of 1977, regarding the then-approved Mackenzie Pipeline. The minutes of this meeting clearly reveal two opposing cultures and two opposing ways of understanding economic, social and cultural development, with the land and its inhabitants as the focus.
While researching events and people connected to this document, Salez noticed there was a lack of information available. Online searches have become a valuable first step to researching any topic. Wikipedia gained its name to fame as a peer sourced online encyclopedia. However, there is little to no information regarding key Yukon First Nations people. Let us indigenize Wikipedia. The goal is to have Yukoners create and/or add to wiki pages that highlight Yukon First Nations leaders, policy makers, politicians, cultural workers, artists/crafters, hunters, gatherers, community contributors, aunties, uncles, grandparents. This can be anyone alive or passed.
We are proposing a drop-in style event to allow people to contribute to Wikipedia. We are inviting people from the public and from organizations to contribute to writing, editing, or posting to Wikipedia about Yukon First Nations people.
If this interests you, I would be excited to hear your thoughts about this. Also, please pass this along if you know of anyone who would be interested! Heathervon (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2018[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.

Asking another favour[edit]

Could I ask you to have a quick look at the image review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic X-treme/archive1. The image reviewer requested a second opinion, and I'd appreciate your expertise there. Sarastro (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neamathla[edit]

I don’t understand your rationale for these edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neamathla&diff=prev&oldid=835989956

For someone who was in a lot of military action, saying he died of natural causes is useful. That he had mixed parentage is also significant. deisenbe (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deisenbe, |parents= is intended for identifying the parents, not simply stating their ethnicity - discussing ethnic background in this context is controversial, see for example this RfC. As for the rest, we generally don't include null values. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review help[edit]

I am hoping to reduce your image review workload some, but I have a lot to learn about it. Do you have any guides written on doing it, or should I just look through old FACs and ACCs to learn how to do them better? Kees08 (Talk) 10:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kees08, check out this guide and the Signpost articles linked in the final point. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Hi, could you specify which MoS you are referring to? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattythewhite, see MOS:IMGSIZE and WP:IBT. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me towards relevant passages? I can't see anything relating to preferred image sizes or the exclusion of sourced full names with regards to infoboxes. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the former: "Where absolutely necessary, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) may be specified. This, however, ignores the user's base width setting, so upright=scaling factor is preferred whenever possible". See also WP:IMGSIZE.
For the latter: "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". See also WP:ONUS. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re the latter, I don't see how either WP:IBT or WP:ONUS encourage, or even imply, the removal of sourced full names from infoboxes. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The full names are already included, in |name=. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article Jack Butland is on my watchlist, so I noticed the fullname thing. The point is, unless the full name is explicitly included in the field, the reader can't tell whether "Jack Butland" is the subject's full name or whether Wikipedia just hasn't entered his full name yet – and shouldn't be expected to guess. Which means it isn't "unnecessary content" from the reader's point of view. I'll put it back. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) I'd disagree. It's default (for articles I write and know) that the name in the name parameter is also the full name, That parameter needs to be filled only if not and no birthname. If the template doc doesn't say so, it should. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right, for whatever infoboxes are used in your field of interest, and that's what regular readers of biographical articles in that field will have come to expect. WP:INFOBOXUSE says
The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox.
and
Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used.
The list of types of infobox linked from that MoS page includes Template:Infobox football biography. That infobox's documentation says |name= is for common name and |fullname= is for full name, and doesn't say full name if different. And has done certainly for the 10+ years that I've been here and writing/maintaining documentation-compliant football/soccer bios, so it's what regular readers of football/soccer articles will have come to expect. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I try to be as concise, unrepetitive and not redundant as possible in infoboxes, and wouldn't even repeat a name in the image caption, nor fill any parameter for consistency's sake. To me, "full name" implies a difference to the common name (or birth name). The only infobox for people I use is {{infobox person}} which doesn't even have the parameter (but |other_names=). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I understand that for whatever reason this is what has become common practice for you, but it just doesn't make sense. Including the same thing in both places implies for someone who pays very close attention and draws such assumptions that the person has no middle name; so what? What is the significance of that fact that would warrant the redundancy? Just because the template documentation doesn't forbid including both when they're the same, isn't a rationale to do so. There are far more biographical articles that don't do this, and I don't think we can assume that the readers misunderstand that approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I'd have though a subject's full name, if verifiable by a reliable published source, was a piece of information an encyclopedia might be expected to include. And it isn't just the difference between having a middle name or not, as I'm sure you're aware.
What wouldn't make sense is having a fullname parameter if it wasn't meant 1) to contain the subject's full name whatever it may be and verified by a reliable published source, or 2) absent a reliable source for that piece of information, to be omitted or left blank.
If you think it should be done differently, then please propose the change somewhere appropriate. This particular infobox does have ~150,000 transclusions, so making piecemeal changes that run counter both to the documentation and to de facto standards probably isn't the ideal approach. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struway2 has elucidated my view better than I could have.
I would like to note that the |name= parameter in the football biography infobox is for the "commonly used name of the player", per the infobox documentation, and thus is not equivalent to the subject's full name. Indeed, the lead includes the full name only *if known*.
Leaving the |fullname= parameter blank would cause unnecessary ambiguity for our readers. I, at least, would be wondering whether the subject has no middle name *or* whether Wikipedia's contributors hadn't found out the subject's full name yet. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to disagree. Did you hear me that the general infobox for persons has no "full name" parameter? It seems a footballer specialty. There is no reason, ever, to fill all fields of an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems quite curious to me, considering it's not just footballers, of course, who have full names. Not sure what your point is in your last sentence. Who is arguing that we should "fill all fields of an infobox"? This discussion is about one *specific* field. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One specific field which is in the specific cases at issue redundant. The argument for including it is premised on a set of assumptions that don't appear to be valid: first, that not having an identical name and full name would lead the reader to conclude we simply don't know the player's full name; and second, that the fact that the player has no middle name is of such great interest to the reader that it absolutely must be implied, but not so interesting that it should be directly addressed by the article text. As ONUS indicates, just because a specific fact can be sourced, does not mean it must be included, and excluding full name in the case that it is identical to name is consistent with MOS and with practice across a much wider field of biographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldwyn/Goldfish[edit]

Hi

It's a detail, but ¿why did you revert this? It would be clear Goldfish, because it happened precisely before he legally changed his surname to Goldwyn --Jbaranao (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jbaranao, you're right - I'll change it back. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar expert[edit]

Hi, NM - I need someone who is proficient in grammar to explain why the following syntax: "In November 2017, The Federalist came under criticism from both conservatives and liberals for publishing an article by Ouachita Baptist University philosopher Tully Borland which defended Roy Moore's dating...." is incorrect. I tried to explain it as the relative clause is not preceded by the relative pronoun; therefore, it refers to everything in the sentence that precedes it. A constituent containing the relative pronoun must come first in the relative clause, otherwise something has to be moved to the front of the clause. Thanks in advance. Atsme📞📧 19:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme, reviewing the complete phrase and the response on the talk page, I actually would go with "which" over "who" there, although I would probably make changes to other parts of the sentence. "Which" is the relative pronoun referring to the article that was published by Borland. Or am I missing context to your proposed change? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article (an op-ed) was published in The Federalist. The publisher (Ben Domenech) defended the decision to publish it - he didn't defend the article itself. The author of the op-ed, Borland, is the one who was defending Moore (the WP editor appears to have conflated the material based on what I read). My proposal is here. I didn't mention it to you at first because some of these political articles can be very intimidating, and even when one is focused on the syntax/semantics it's a tough argument to make in a NPOV situation - so most editors don't want to get involved. Atsme📞📧 01:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I found the proposal. I'd say it'd be better to rephrase the sentence entirely rather than spend time on which/who. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Validation of one's thoughts/work can either be inspiring, or a stress reliever 😂...thank you! Atsme📞📧 20:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Bringing the begging bowl round[edit]

Greetings, dear Nikkimaria! I know your workload in reviewing is huge, and I am very tentative in asking if you might be willing and able to look in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/André Messager/archive1 and assess our images. Quite understand if not, naturally, and best wishes for whatever you're doing. Kind regards, Tim riley talk 21:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I add my pleas (please). I can only say, in our defense, that it is shorter than some of our previous tomes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for looking in and giving us your review. It is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 12:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 27[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New collections
    • Alexander Street (expansion)
    • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
  • User Group
  • Global branches update
    • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
  • Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 44 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Medical Journal[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, Howdy!. Do you happen know if we have access to the BMJ? I am specifically looking for [3] about the Platt Report, the result of which enabled children to be visited by their parents in hospital, on a general basis, for the first time, here in the UK. If not, can you point me in the general direction. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: That article is available in full text here. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whooah, that was quick. :) Thanks. I never knew you could do it. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've probably said this before[edit]

I've probably apologized before, but sorry again if I was a serial-incident jerk in the past. Best wishes in all things. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018 at Women in Red[edit]

Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons.
File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg



New: "Women of the Sea"

New: "Villains"

New: "Women in Sports"

New: "Central Eastern European women"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

need for speed world article, removal of wikia link[edit]

Your edit comment mentions removal of the wikia links as a non-reliable source. One of the links was for a list of original version driver skills (there are 81 of these).

nfs.wikia.com/wiki/Need_for_Speed:_World/Driver_Skills

The wikia driver skills page essentially matches this youtube video showing actual in game screen display of driver skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbYCqs2AGbU

I can understand that wikia articles are not normally considered as reliable sources, but in this case, the article is about a retired game, (most of the sources for the original (version 4.0) are now gone) and the wikia article was peer-reviewed, including Marc De Vellis who was part of the development team at EA for NFS World. Before I make any changes to the Wiki article, would you prefer that I use the youtube as a stand alone source, or could I provide a link to both, so that a reader could view the youtube video to confirm the driver skills as listed on the wikia page? Rcgldr (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that all of the EA sourced links on the Wiki article are either broken or redirect to current games, including EA Forums, which was shutdown and replaced by a new forum site that uses the same URL and name. Most of the review links are still working, but these don't include much detail about the game. Some of the game content descriptions were included in announcements made at the old EA Forums, but the web archive doesn't include these since they were several links deep from the main web site, so essentially there are very few, if any, sources for the actual content of the game other than Wikia. Does this mean the Wiki article should be deleted since the sources are now gone? Rcgldr (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Rcgldr. You can try using archive.org to recover now-dead links, or using the game itself as a primary source to support material in the article. Conversely, using unreliable sources because of a lack of reliable ones would not be a good approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, archive.org doesn't archive entire web site maps which is an issue for forums, as typically no actual posts are archived. This means all of those EA announcements in posts from EA forums or from EA.com are permanently lost to the public (there was an "in house" backup of the game, forum, and old web site, but that's probably gone now). All you get now with those links is a text only copy of ea.com's old front page with all the graphics removed. I count 8 broken EA reference links in the Wiki Need For Speed World article, since EA replaced all the old web sites and forums with new versions. There was a back up forum at world-garage.com, which provided an archive for all EA NFS World announcements and updates, but it was also shut down and again archive.org doesn't have any archives of actual posts. There are a series of 60+ "Ask Marc" videos (search for youtube ask marc need for speed), which cover the changes made over time, but contain very little on game specifics. The official game itself can't be used as it was online only and only hacked versions (ones that emulate EA's server) exist these days, and I don't know if there are any working hacked copies of version 4 of NFS World. Again I point out that in this particular case, the Wikia web site peer reviewing group for NFS World included members of EA's development team, which would make it more of a reliable source than a fan only (no developer contribution) web site. Rcgldr (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were peer reviewed by the devs (do you have a link to support that?), it's still an open, fan-driven wiki. I understand the frustration about lack of reliable sources for the topic, but I disagree with the proposed solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see one developer listed on nfsworld wikia page. The developers were involved, but I don't think they did any edits, so they won't show up in the edit history.
nfsworld.wikia.com/wiki/Marc_De_Vellis
nfsworld.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Developers
For the driver skills, I can use the youtube video, since that was an in game video capture. With the 8 EA.com or forum.ea.com broken links (with no archived copies), there are no reliable sources other than the occasional youtube video for actual game content. What's wiki's policy when a reliable source or an archived copy no longer exists? Rcgldr (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's WP:DEADREF. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case (*.ea.com..., *.needforspeed.com..., ...) would all be "hopelessly lost web-only sources". As of April 6, 2016, all PC games links (this would include all content related to NFS World) were removed and not archived. As of September 25, 2016, what little was left at forums.ea.com was removed (not archived) and now redirects to ea.com/forums, which is a new web site, with no content for older NFS games such as NFS World. Currently NFS Payback is the primary NFS game featured on ea's web site. There is answers.ea.com other need for speed games, but I don't think any of the developers for NFS World participate in that forum. The current moderators rely on members like myself to post information about the older NFS games. Rcgldr (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the other Wiki articles on older Need For Speed games (I haven't checked video games in general), there are virtually no references for the sections that describe gameplay, cars, parts, maps, event types, plot lines, ... , and the feedback I get from a similar question on the talk page for Wiki video games about Wikia web sites as references, is they can't be used, regardless how well specific Wikia pages are monitored, so I've given up on trying to add reference to the Wiki articles about game content. No one seems to be complaining about the lack of references, and it appears these pages are self-monitored by the group of users doing the edits and having discussions on the related talk pages. I also read somewhere that "technically all sources are user generated sources", with some exceptions like actual video or images of an event if you can trust that the video or the content involved was not modified. Rcgldr (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need For Speed World article - general[edit]

  • I noted the dead links (no archives exist for *.ea.com, *.needforspeed.com, ...) in the article. Rcgldr (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the closure section, it states that another company took over the title, but that's not true. Hackers that are members of a Canadian forum elitepvpers.com modified the game to work "offline" with an emulated server, and an "online" version known as SoapBox Race World. Rcgldr (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Food[edit]

Curd Rice
Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about productivity - Article-a-day contest?[edit]

Hi. It appears you have written less than ten articles this year despite a huge backlog and loss of productive editors. As an active Wikipedian you ideally should be writing, not just editing and checking boxes. If you need any ideas of what to write about please tackle writing English versions of the articles on this list. Since you are one of the most senior active Wikipedians (with an incredible number of barnstars) you should be a role model for the newbies by creating good, quality, NEW articles. I hope to see you developing a writing habit soon because the number of new articles is just not what it used to be. Would you like to have a 5,000 byte+ article-a-day challenge if that motivates you? (I actually had to do that for school once and it was a great learning experience, I highly recommend it)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer you to my response above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. For all the time you spend on Wikipedia you REALLY need to be more productive and do more WRITING instead of EDITING.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As above: while starting new articles is a great thing, it's not the only productive thing available on the site. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2018[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.

My First Barnstar Award[edit]

The Reviewer Barnstar
For the invaluable contributions you make, pretty much single-handedly as far as I can see, to keeping our best content honest, image-wise. Sincerely appreciated Factotem (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might I just say you have a lot of barnstars for someone who hardly every writes an article? Kinda like Brezhnev; lots of shiny medal things, tells everyone what to do, but doesn't produce anything. But all those with lower ranks do all the work but he gets the credit.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your posting here doesn't seem to be too productive, Planespotter, and your analogy off-base. Think it's best you move on.
Cheers Factotem, appreciate that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best you write a few articles instead of just reviewing stuff. Do you know how bothersome it is when people who don't even write many articles get offended by the presence of a ribbon rack in an article they didn't create or write on? It hurts productivity and increases bureaucracy, and nobody should perform solely bureaucratic functions. How is analogy off point? You seem to have devoted yourself to memorizing the entire rule book but only uses it to enforce it on other people instead of using their knowledge to write articles. Yet because you are reviewing in the time you could be writing articles you get more barnstars for less content...Just like Brezhnev had more awards than people that actually earned them. (Just google Brezhnev jokes and you'll understand). And it didn't take me very long to write this at all and it's worth it if you actually decide to make yourself useful for once and start writing. If you spend hours editing you may as well fill in content gaps instead of drafting the latest policy to annoy everyone else. Thanks to the aggressive focus on non-content things like your fuss over Meklin we have even less writers than ever despite a huge need for translation to fill content gaps. [See this http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/who-the-hell-writes-wikipedia-anyway] With only 1400 nerds making many edits and only a few of those nerds writing, most articles on important subjects will never be written. And as for my opinion on barnstars they should only be for writing articles, expanding them, bot-related, or other CONTENT. To summarize the feelings of REAL editors--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that you're bothered, but to put what I said above more bluntly: you're wrong, and it's best you move on. Writing new articles is not the only thing of value to do on the project, and not the only thing that improves the experience of our readers. I can't control what other people choose to award barnstars for, but generally speaking reviewing and editing are worthwhile tasks too. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I'm even dignifying your tirade with a response, Planespotter, but FYI Nikkimaria has produced several articles that have been promoted to Featured status. Even if she hadn't, her contributions to source and image reviewing have been immense and have helped ensure the quality of many other articles, including my own. She deserves more barnstars than she receives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Curran[edit]

Hi, thanks for making the changes. Just wondering, though, why you removed death cause. Maybe it's standard not to have this, not sure. CraigS1969 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CraigS1969, check out the explanation at the template documentation about when that should or shouldn't be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now, thanks for that. CraigS1969 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jessie Hickman[edit]

On 12 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jessie Hickman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jessie Hickman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jessie Hickman), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 02:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018[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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access to archives[edit]

Hi, Nikki - any ideas how I can gain access to the Daily Express (UK) Wed 28 Nov 1962 Page 3 at this link Atsme📞📧 22:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Looks like there are quite a few libraries that subscribe to that service, so you'd probably have luck at RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh...good to know!! I'm missing our email exchanges - hope all is well with you! Atsme📞📧 01:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion[edit]

Your reversion of the linking of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at the article of that name, makes it so that the term is not linked at Portal:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, where the lead is displayed using selective transclusion. By adding link delimiters at the root article, readers can click on it at the portal to go to the article. But, because of your reversion, they cannot.    — The Transhumanist   13:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist, I don't think article transclusion is the way to go here. You might want to take a look at Portal:Opera, which is a Featured Portal and see how it's structured. We made our own pages to transclude, not actual articles. Our intro article text is on Portal:Opera/Intro. This has multiple advantages because it won't include maintenance tags like {{cn}} that might creep into the article you're transcluding. Plus, you probably don't want all that phonetic clutter, e.g. (/ˈwʊlfɡæŋ æməˈdeɪəs ˈmoʊtsɑːrt/ MOHT-sart. It's really off-putting to the casual reader. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The template uses a lua module that strips the tags out. It is also under further development, so taking out phonetics is certainly a possibility. Hadn't thought of that. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   13:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I. F. Stone[edit]

Hi,

You reverted an edit that added a 'cause of death' to this article. Your revert included no summary, so I reverted it. You have now reverted my change, with the comment: "See template summary" (with a link to Twinkle, an editing tool). So: I still don't know why you removed that information.

I assume your edits were in good faith. I haven't used Twinkle; perhaps it makes it difficult to add helpful edit summaries.

Would you consider re-adding the information that I. F. Stone died of a myocardial infarction?

Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MrDemeanour: per the documentation for that template, cause of death "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, e.g. James Dean, John Lennon. It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness", as in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite - Tommy Vance[edit]

Hiya, thanks for getting in touch. Regarding the Tommy Vance article, I spent much time writing it myself using online references. Whilst these were the source of the information, the text was not a copy and paste. I wrote each paragraph with careful detail and had I not they would not be very cohesive and not very well read.Yellowxander (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yellowxander, my concern is that the text you are adding is almost identical to some of those online references. For example, compare "It was while docked in New York, listening to US radio, that he first toyed with becoming a disc jockey.... Unable to find an opening in British radio in the Fifties, he enrolled at a Northern Ireland college, becoming a part-time actor/stage hand." with "It was while docked in New York, listening to US radio, that he first toyed with becoming a disc jockey. Unable to find an opening in the staid environs of British radio in the Fifties, he enrolled at a Northern Ireland college, becoming a part-time actor/stage hand." - these two excerpts are almost identical. Similarly, compare "He had been brought up on the rather staid British broadcasting of the fifties and, like a number of his contemporaries, he fell in love with the brash sound of American commercial radio the moment he heard it." with "He had been brought up on the rather staid British broadcasting of the fifties and, like a number of his contemporaries, he fell in love with the brash sound of American commercial radio the moment he heard it." - these two are word-for-word identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that looks like I have copied in the source rather than what I rewrote, as some of those words and phrasing I didn't like, oops! I'll have rewrite this weekend then! Yellowxander (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LXG[edit]

Why did you remove the link to the wikia of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? It was in external links section. 46.39.229.148 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, see WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Richards (surgeon)[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was wondering whether subsequent edits have addressed the issues you raised here. Can you please stop by and comment? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe Pink Dress[edit]

Why was Paris Hilton's quote removed from the page? Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncoveringcelebrityhistory, it lacked reliable sourcing to indicate its significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. Thank you for your reply. I am not sure if this is the correct place to bring this up but I was wondering should the pink dress have a separate chapter for the controversies surrounding the one sold at auction? I have put it under history but it seems like it should be put under a new chapter. What are your thoughts? Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could make it a subsection under History perhaps. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that?

Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the whole article there is a good chunk that is just to do with the inconsistencies with the original dress and the one sold at auction. Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the whole article there is a good chunk that is just to do with the inconsistencies with the original dress and the one sold at auction. Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria!

You were very helpful in my getting access to Questia, etc. Are you still active w/library svcs?

My question is in re: Newspapers.com. I would like access, but when I attempted to apply, I was asked to log in again. I don't believe I have a password for WMF, or for WMFLabs. Do I need to apply for that first? Thank you for your time, and for all your efforts. rags (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi rags, if you hit the log in button here, you should be taken back to Wikimedia to log in with your regular account, which connects to the platform via OAuth. Is that not what's happening for you? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't tried the button. Worked just fine, once I clicked it. Thanks again. rags (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

ScienceSource funded[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.

A medical canon?

The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.

The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.

Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.

Links[edit]

OpenRefine logo, courtesy of Google
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June Editathons[edit]

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Mos:link listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mos:link. Since you had some involvement with the Mos:link redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_37&oldid=1212148835"