User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 43

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

Truman 1948[edit]

Hi! Just two things. Can the image review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign/archive1 be considered formally "passed"? Secondly, I am not sure whether I should upload this image to Commons. We don't know who the author of this map is, neither is the publication date mentioned. Can we determine whether it is in the PD or not? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's credited to Harris & Ewing - is it included in that collection at LOC? If so then PD-Harris-Ewing from Commons would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to the FAC, I'd like to see what happens with the Commons deletion request you mentioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 47[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

  • On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
  • Search tool deployed
  • New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2021[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.

Kubrick's marriages and children[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. It seems the suggestion for discussing which parameters to include in this infobox was actually wise. Why did you remove the |spouse= and |children= parameters? It seems like standard, basic information. —El Millo (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion, agreed - it's unfortunate that that was abandoned.
With regards to those parameters, see the relevant MOS - cluttering it up with minute details like the years of his divorces obscures the key facts. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1937 Brazilian coup d'état image review[edit]

Hi. Any update for the image review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1937 Brazilian coup d'état/archive1? Thanks. FredModulars (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FredModulars, do you have a reference confirming that all images in the newspaper's collection were published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have read my response, you would know that I provided two references for the two images: "Vargas of Brazil: A Political Biography" by John W.F. Dulles, and an archive of the Correio da Manhã. Therefore, they were published, even if not all in the archive were. Those are the only images sourced from the collection. Please see my reply there. FredModulars (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read your response. File:Plínio_Salgado,_1959.tif is also sourced to that collection. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your source confirming they were published. "Adquirida em leilão e doada ao Arquivo Nacional, a documentação presente no fundo Correio da Manhã inclui recortes de jornal, filmes, caricaturas, plantas, mapas, cartazes, e – literalmente – milhões de fotografias." Or, the Correio da Manhã was donated to the National Archives and contains millions of photos from the newspaper. FredModulars (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Response? FredModulars (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Your final concern has been addressed. I ended up removing the two images of the Agencia Nacional. Anything else before the review can be passed? FredModulars (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adam Pearce[edit]

Hello. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that 2600:1700:b420:7190:e5ce:df67:4848:14ba (either that or another, very similar, probably-the-same-person IP) re-added the content that you reverted because they were doing a WP:CIRCULAR. I was going to revert it, but I found out that the Wikipedia article they linked had a reference for the claim they wanted to add so I added the reference; don't know why they didn't just do that in the first place.

Also, now that we're on the subject of said article, I noticed that 2600 keeps adding a picture on the infobox, File:Adam Pearce in 2012..jpg, in which the subject looks rather small (at least when put in the infobox), but seems to prefer it over putting other pictures where Pearce is seen better, like File:Adam Pearce.jpg or File:Adam Pearce NWA World Heavyweight Champion.jpg, apparently (apparently) because the first picture is from 2012 and the other two are from 2010, so the first one is technically more recent. I see that you've dealt with images, so I was wondering if you knew if we have some manual of style about what to do in cases like that; I personally would've prefer a more visible image even if it's slightly older over a more recent one in which it's more difficult to see the subject of an article. Cheers.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdgarCabreraFariña, if the only concern with the IP's preferred image is the size of the subject, could that be addressed by cropping the image to focus on him? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, it completely missed me that that could actually be a good way to fix it. Thanks!--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grian[edit]

why did u delete everything in grian's wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by K5gproWiki (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K5gproWiki, open wikis are not considered reliable sources, particularly for information about living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism[edit]

You should probably identify yourself as deletionist and join the meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. What do you think? (see also Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia)

No thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question on copyright tags for images[edit]

Hi! You helped me back in the way-back to learn about proper copyright tags on images in articles I work on, but I now have a new question I hope you will be willing to help me with. I have images like this one [[2]] where the creator of the image has posted: "I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

I cannot for the life of me find a copyright tag that covers this. What do I do? Can you help me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777, I'm not sure I understand your question - you're quoting from a copyright tag that is already present on that image. Do you believe the licensing is incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it had to have something that said "copyright free in the US" or some such thing. The statement by the author is sufficient? I don't need anything else anywhere? Whoohoo! Thank you so much for your willingness to help others. I hope you never let the naysayers get you down. You are always great, and I love your commitment to the highest quality standards for WP. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! If it's an entirely user-created work, the user can simply release the work under their chosen license. Since this one applies worldwide, that includes the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you! Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image-related question[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for this random message, but I have a quick image-related question. It is about File:Ttrina-106-park.jpg. I used it in the "No Panties" article, but an editor raised concerns about it. The image was uploaded in 2019, although the uploader claims it was taken in 2014, and it is the only image that they uploaded. Their edit summary (No I own this work) also seems a little odd. I agree with the concerns raised about the image, but I was wondering if I could have your opinion. Is this image really appropriate licensed? I still know very little about images, and I should be better about this and use this as a reason to explore it more in the future. I hope you are having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, given that the image appeared elsewhere online before its upload here, I doubt the user really has the right to release the image under the license given. Unless they're able to demonstrate they have that right - which, given their absence, is unlikely - I think the image will need to be deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR nomination[edit]

I have nominated Great Fire of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI[edit]

Enormous issues on talk, but I don't know if 1e has yet been demonstrated (I am intentionally not looking). May need a watchful eye: J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for you to keep an eye on; trying to head off problems at the pass. Ronald Reagan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisner Auditorium section deletion[edit]

Hello, in the Lisner Auditorium entry, I added the following section (below) on popular culture references, with a citation. The cited source seems to me to meet the guidelines for a reliable source; while it is from the original vendor's website, wiki rules say we can use this those for merely factual information, which is how I used it (dates, plot summary). Could you please explain why you think this is an unrelaiable source for this usage? And could you please take things to the Talk page under Lisner Auditorium before deleting? Thank you!

In The Incredible Hulk #151, May 1972, Lisner Auditorium appears as the site of a cancelled appearance by Henry Pym, a.k.a. Ant-Man. Bruce Banner, looking for Pym, arrives to find the event cancelled; becoming sufficiently enraged, he is transformed into the Hulk, smashes his way out of Lisner, and rampages cars nearby.[1]

Troutfang (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goodwin (writer), Archie; Trimpe (penciler), Herb; Severin (inker), John (May 1972). "When Monsters Meet". Incredible Hulk. 1 (155). Retrieved 30 November 2021.

Update: Update: in looking back, I think I cited incorrectly. I used the citation for the comic book itself, not the website that gives the synopsis, which is the source I should cite. Would this solve it? Troutfang (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Troutfang, neither the comic book itself nor the Fandom site would be an appropriate source. As per this discussion "in popular culture" entries need reliable secondary sources. The comic itself is not secondary, while Fandom as an open wiki is not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you. That is very helpful. I didn't realize the Fandom site was an open wiki. In the future, would you mind please flagging the source problem rather than deleting an entire section? There's also a Talk section about my recent expansions of the article where the issue could have been brought up before deletion. Thank you.Troutfang (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist editnotice[edit]

I can't decipher whether this was ever implemented. I've just discovered that a change at WP:OWN meant that medical editnotices were pointing nowhere for years, including today, where TS was hit. It appears that Tom's proposal was never implemented ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Sturmvogel 66 knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it was. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius[edit]

In your revert, you mentioned Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 4, but perhaps better check out Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 3 where those who contributed to the article were present. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, especially Tim and Ipigott's comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad. But then why did you focus on the standard Ssilvers comment which rarely fits but certainly not in this case. Even subtracting his personal comments. On a nice Sunday, all I can do is ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria!

I see you've removed two References I just added to Melanie Leishman's Wiki for being "Non Reliable Sources". :(

The House Party link to YouTube is literally that series official source to be viewed belonging to the production company of the show, Farpoint Distribution. Hard to imagine a more reliable source of information on a TV series than the actual series itself, officially uploaded. :)

You also removed the Reference for Paw Patrol animated TV Movie. :(

That page, unlike the IMDB entry for the film, actually has a full cast listing that includes Melanie Leishman's role.

Without it, anyone checking for info at the more obvious source of IMDB won't see her listed, not even on her own page.

So I think it's a useful source of info.

Seems unfair that Wiki would view another wiki as being unreliable just because it's a wiki. :)

After all IMDB is itself updated by contributors & as such not always accurate (as in this case where it lacks the details my reference had).

I therefore suggest reversing your edits.

Take care,

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk • contribs) 09:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that IMDB is also not a reliable source. It may seem unfair, but that's the way our policies/guidelines work. See WP:USERG. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria!
That appears to be guidance, "is generally unacceptable", in this circumstance the linked page simply gives extra detail lacking from IMDB about the characters & who plays them. Does not seem to be a particularly contencious issue surely? Seems to me that info is better being accesable than not.
You've also not addressed the removal of the official YouTube series link for House Party, seems kind of ridiculous to accuse the actual series as being a "Non Reliable Sources" wouldn't you say?
Take care,
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my removal of the wiki, you're welcome to raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard for additional opinions. As to the YouTube link, inline external links aren't sources - if you are trying to cite that as a reference for the claim, here are instructions on how to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria!
It seems counter productive to remove links with demonstrably correct information based on, not even rules since the very thing you point to to back up your assertion includes generally.
It feels, forgive me if I'm wrong, that you're trying to force your interpretation of guidelines onto others.
You've been here longer & know how to use the system to your ends so I'm unlikely to be succesful in challenging you.
The end result is factual information will not get into the hands of those seeking information, not something someone helping at an encyclopedia should be happy about.
Not the warmest way to welcome in new helpers.
Thank-you for at least discussing this, sorry the interaction is not a happy one.
Have a happy holiday season regardless!
Take care,
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2021[edit]



Headlines
  • From the team: Migration from Outreach to Meta: your opinion is needed
  • France report: Study day on open content; Open content GLAM report
  • India report: Second proofread competition ended on Bengali Wikisource in collaboration with the British Library
  • Italy report: Traing course and conference in November
  • Serbia report: GLAMorous November
  • Sweden report: Art, design and history from the museums of Göteborg; Maps in the National Archives of Sweden
  • UK report: Khalili Collections
  • Ukraine report: Aricle contest for librarians «Local cultural heritage and prominent people»
  • USA report: Smithsonian demos new Wiki API Connector tool and other meetups
  • Content Partnerships Hub report: We continue building for the hub; SDC for fun and profit: detecting bad coordinates; Needs assessment – video recorded interviews; Improving ISA
  • WMF GLAM report: Wikisource birthday celebration, Community Tech Wishlist, and upcoming conversation about courses for GLAM professionals
  • Calendar: December's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Renom to FA; address prior issues raised[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, hope your week/weekend is going well and sorry to bother you. I wanted to get your take before a possible third renom on Regine Velasquez. There were issues you raised during the last FAC nomination, and a thorough copy edit was suggested for stylistic issues among other things. It has gone through a couple of copyedits, one after withdrawing the nom last year and another round recently. I was wondering if you have a moment to check if these issues have been addressed or if there is anything significant that stands out for you. Much appreciate your response and would totally understand if you are busy otherwise. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pseud 14, on a quick look it's definitely better than it was, but there are still some stray style/prose problems, eg "an ABS-CBN's 2002 television special". I also see that there are lots of refs to AllMusic - I haven't checked each of them, but I'd suggest you double-check WP:RSP and make sure the usage is in line with the cautions there. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick look. I've generally used AllMusic for album reviews, and not for any biographical details. On another note, and only if you have the luxury of time, I would appreciate if you can give me specifics of the issues on style/prose that may have been missed during the copyedits or prior reviews that I can address, or if you deem them too significant to be addressed in the potential renom. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're to the extent that would warrant opposing at FAC. Here are some more examples:
  • Quotation marks within quotation marks should be formatted as single quotes
  • ClickTheCity is a work title and should be italicized
  • "Martin Nievera's (Fernandez's husband and The Penthouse Live! co-host) suggestion" - having the parenthetical in that place is awkward and could be reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for citing the above. I've reworked each points, paying much attention to MOS:QWQ which hopefully I was able to address with the changes I've done. Again, much appreciate your time in responding and please don't hesitate to highlight if there's anything amiss. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Reference again[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria!

I've undone your removal of the added Reference for an accurate cast listing for Paw Patrol.

After your previous removal of that Reference & taking your concerns into account, I had carefully re-worded the Reference to specifically say it was a detailed cast listing. Which it is. On top of that I added another supporting Reference.

As stated before, the Reference you seem determined to remove is a more detailed listing for the TV movie than even IMDB & includes the actor for which the article is about. Thus it is an important Reference as without it someone using only IMDB would wonder if the actor is in it at all.

Also worth considering, for the more obscure TV shows, smaller fan Wikis are the only detailed sources available so should be judged in that context.

Kind of surprised that a cited source that gives a demonstrably correct cast listing for an animated kid's movie is causing you so much concern that you feel you twice have to remove it. :(

I could understand if I was citing the Paw Patrol Wiki to back up some outrageous allegation but this is a cast listing.

I do note that you have multiple complaints on your talk page about your dogged removal of references & that you do seem to delete an awful lot of them.

I politely suggest that if that source gives you further concern that you raise a point in the article's Talk page to see if others are as deeply troubled by the PAW Patrol Wiki's integrity as you.

As you seem to like to point me to pages on guidance, thought I'd include one you might benefit from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Really hope that you recognise the silliness in this repeated removal & back off, I came here to expand articles & help those seeking information. Not to get sucked into some feud over PAW Patrol.

Take care,

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, as I've already mentioned if you disagree with the removal you're welcome to seek a second opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. However, your rewording does not address the issue of that particular source being considered unreliable by the Wikipedia community and therefore unsuitable to use as a citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikkimaria!
From the very page you refer to to back up your removal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#How_to_use_this_list
"Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves."
So even if you dispute the credibility of Paw Patrol Wiki it can still be used as a source for "routine information", which I'd say sums up a detailed cast listing perfectly.
I note that & as mentioned here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#fandom.com
That Memory Alpha, part of fandom.com same as my Reference, is linked on the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Wikipedia page.
How is a direct link okay but not a Reference?
By that "logic" I could edit the Paw Patrol page to direct link to the Paw Patrol Wiki but can't use it as a Reference?
Also it was rude of you to revert that edit a third time, I've clearly made an effort to talk to you & it is you that should have started a discussion on the issue in the relevant article's talk page.
This is turning into a tremendous waste of energy.
I see from your talk page that along with the many complaints of removals, you also have positive interactions where it appears you genuinely helped people. Perhaps you could favour that better side of your nature?
At the very least, please stop pestering me.
Take care,
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in "pestering" you, but I do disagree with your interpretation: low-quality sources can be used as information about themselves, but that's not what you're trying to use it for. There is currently community consensus against the use of Fandom as a source, meaning that if you want to use it it's up to you to seek consensus for its use. As to the Memory Alpha example, external links and references follow different rules. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further info at WP:FANDOM.Moxy- 14:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image query for DLB[edit]

Nikki, is everything in order at File:The Autonomic Nervous System.jpg to use it at dementia with Lewy bodies? Thx ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, the uploader of that image has had a significant number of files deleted, which makes me a bit reluctant to accept an own-work claim at face value. That being said, I can't immediately locate an older publication online. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki ... it's not important, I was just tossing about to find something to add, but we're good without it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Riel[edit]

Not sure we are going to be able get this edit warrior to stop. Thinking start with warning ....but from their talk page history I don't see the point. How can we get them to work with us over just bullying in every edit by edit reverts over and over and over and over....including shit sources. Think we have a cases where we have an editor trying to help....but doing so by searching Google for things over being aware of scholarly publications that can easily be viewed. Seeing blogs and travel site used leads me to belive they are new to the topic.Moxy- 05:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see much In way of edit summaries ...but this is concerning edit summary.... disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? Good faith only goes so far with bullies for me.Moxy- 05:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moxy, I've responded to the discussion again; if it continues going downhill, you could try pinging Bearcat back to it, since he was able to intervene last time. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Io, Saturnalia![edit]

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ealdgyth, same to you! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of the season[edit]

Holiday cheer
Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 N. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Cheers MarnetteD! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Dust Was Once the Man[edit]

You may be interested in this FA. There is a stand-alone section "Text" that quotes the poem. Doesn't seem to add much in the way of context. You will notice there is no mention of it in the GA review, transcluded in the article's talk page. Perhaps the reviewer lacks experience. I expect you would want to cull that section? A propos of nothing, a review of the dispute @ Krishnamurti's Notebook will be requested shortly. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!!

Hello Nikkimaria, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. 

scope_creepTalk 01:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is safe, festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2022 will be safe, healthy, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist Modernist (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Kendrick[edit]

On Green Kendrick you deleted a source. The claim about the persons death in the article is now without a source. You added something without a source, I don't like it having a bad source either, so delete the sentence, or add a better source, you are abandoning a sentence without a source which is against WP:UNSOURCED. Thanks, and Merry Christmas! Lectrician2 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lectrician2, thank you for trying to explain this time rather than simply using a template, but you are mistaken on several points. First, I added nothing; you added poor sourcing to the article, and edit-warred to keep it there despite agreeing that it's poor sourcing. The burden of UNSOURCED is on the person who adds or restores material, which in this case is you. Second, the other content you claim is unsourced is not - it is sourced in the first sentence of the article. You could repeat the citation yourself, or had it actually been unsourced you could have removed the claim yourself. But simply reverting and templating is not an appropriate solution. Please revert yourself, and take more care with your patrolling in future. Merry Christmas. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is any reader supposed to magically connect the dots to the source up above? There's no source for the sentence. It's a sticky situation, but I'll extend the olive branch in this situation and copy the source from up above and put it next to the sentence. Have a nice day! Lectrician2 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article has two paragraphs, I don't expect anyone reading it to struggle. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Maria de Martinez[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wanted to drop you a note to let you know why I reverted your removal of Find a Grave on the article about Ana Maria de Martinez. As I stated there I think its inclusion here falls under the rare use of this unreliable source. It is, so far, the ONLY source I can find of the subject's death. ELPEREN = "As an external link: Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere ". Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WomenArtistUpdates, I think we've crossposted here - I've just opened a discussion about this on the article's talk page. I'd suggest we continue there to avoid splitting the conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat premature New Year's greeting[edit]


John Vanderlyn, Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (c.1812),
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts 		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2022.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moral lesson: John Vanderlyn was an American painter who studied in Paris, and his life-sized
Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos was one of the first large nudes exhibited in the United States.
Peddling the poison as well as the cure, this overtly sensuous work was presented to the public as a
moral lesson on the consequences of lascivious behavior. Visible in the distance is the ship of
Princess Ariadne's secret lover, Theseus, for whom she has betrayed her people by helping him to
escape the Labyrinth and slay the Minotaur. Ariadne's bliss will come to an end when she awakens
from her post-coital reverie, only to discover that the faithless Theseus has sailed away without her.
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 with Women in Red[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Fire of London, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whig and Robert Brooke.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave links, images[edit]

Nikkimaria, I saw your edit at Johnny Floyd, removing the Find a Grave link (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/202604538/john-cullom-floyd). I presume you removed it because the image of the news clipping there? I've clipped this same article from Newspapers.com, likely where Find a Grave user Michelle Hamlin Peterson got it from as well; see https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91477704/the-knoxville-news-sentinel/. That clipping can be viewed by anyone on the internet. Find a Grave and Newspapers.com are both owned by Ancestry.com. So whose copyright is being violated here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe the link is a benefit to the article, if the clipping is available elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The value is in image of the grave and the database cross-reference. Regardless, you didn't answer my question about copyright violation. Can you do so? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, there isn't an exemption in Newspapers.com's terms to allow uploading of its content to Find a Grave. If I'm mistaken in that, I'd appreciate a link. As for database cross-reference, I'd suggest taking that to Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

trim in Infobox organization/Wikidata[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, you made a small change in the Template:Infobox_organization/Wikidata to not allow the tax_id field to automatically be filled with the IRS Employer Identification Number (P1297). Could you explain, why that was wrong? I know there are many more tax ids in different countries like the VAT-ID in Germany, but with many American NGOs, I see at least no harm in a Wikidata-based Infobox. It could be expanded to other tax_ids. If it stays changed, please also check for consistency in the Documentation. Thank you --Newt713 (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newt713, automatically adding in minutiae like this will not be helpful for most readers. If there's a reason to add it in a particular case, that can be done manually. I'd also suggest that when you start adding this template, you check for consistency with the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation and the adaption of the Documentation. Happy new Year! --Newt713 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022[edit]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Clione removal[edit]

Hey, I saw you reverted my change on the page Clione limacina... can you please tell me what counts as a "valid reference" when talking about a videogame? I could really use the help, I'm pretty new here. Thanks in advance! Snoteleks (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from your userpage Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eddie. Snoteleks, basically for something like this you'd be looking for a source that is both secondary (so not the game itself) and reliable. In terms of what counts as "reliable" the Video Game WikiProject has a pretty detailed page on sourcing that you can have a look at specifically with regards to video games, and there's also a more general page here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks so much! Snoteleks (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: reversion of edit in Essex Junction[edit]

I saw you reverted my edit of Essex Junction. Could you help me understand why this isn't a reliable source. The source and associated image contain screenshots from the game in question. The screenshot itself is axiomatic, but it's also corroborated by a separate source. Do you have suggestions as to what would be a reliable citation in this instance?

An interesting (and possibly relevant) detail: The reference in the game likely relates to IBM's Xenon processor being used in the Xbox 360, and there is an IBM facility in Essex.

Also, out of sincere curiosity. How did you come across my edit so quickly? The article is not a very popular topic. Were you watching that page in particular?

~~Mattevt | Hit me up • edits 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattevt, there was a decision here that "in popular culture" entries should be supported by reliable secondary sourcing that establishes the significance of the entry. A screenshot is a primary source, and as a self-published source an open wiki like Fandom is not considered reliable. The Video Games WikiProject has an information page here that might be helpful for you. As to how I found that edit, I monitor for additions of certain sources that are not reliable - that page popped up in one of those lists. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Martial Arts - Masahiro Chono reference on Royal Hunt page[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria. I hope you don't mind me putting back this important part of Royal Hunt's history. I wounder what made you remove it. Best regards, W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster213795 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Webmaster213795, wikis are generally not considered reliable sources - if you feel this information is important to include I would encourage you to locate some better sourcing for it before putting it back. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion? Why?[edit]

I'm confused by your decision to revert a tremendous amount of formatting in John Barbirolli merely for what appears to be a desire to re-insert a few words which I'd deemed redundant. Please re-consider your choice for how to conduct an edit (or in this case, a reverting edit) instead of (I presume for the sake of expedience) a simple mouse click. I checked the citation guidelines as recommended, and it doesn't apply directly to my work. I merely employed the WP template and, for the sake of conformity, retained the formatting already within the article. Please advise. --SidP (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SidP, I didn't revert because of the few words you mention, but rather because of the reformatting - as indicated in my edit summary, per CITEVAR. Prior to your edits the article had a consistent citation style that did not involve the use of citation templates for inline citations. Please keep in mind that while you may find these templates convenient, they are not mandatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. However, you did not take into account that the formatting which was done was consistent with the format of the template. Additionally, there was bibliographical data added. I am not trying to overtake someone's formatting style; I can respect their choice. This was not the case. Perhaps I am mistaken, but instead of noticing that the template was used, perhaps compare the resultant reference presentation. Regardless I will be more cognizant in the future.--SidP (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SidP, it simply isn't the case that the formatting that existed previously was consistent with the formatting of the templates you added. And even if it were, when an article already uses a consistent untemplated system, CITEVAR indicates that it shouldn't be converted to templates without first seeking consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I will read CITEVAR more closely, as I wasn't aware of that. When I take the time to find and add more bibliographic data, I thought it was best to create the template. Often, but not always, hand created references have slight variations/inconsistencies, and this prevents that.--SidP (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately templated citations can have their own errors and inconsistencies! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Find A Grave, again[edit]

While it appears to be a very big concern of your regarding Find A Grave links, I denote you complete also removed the informative fact from John Galloway and George Galloway, Coongressional Medal of Honor Awardees - that they were brothers, buried next to each other. That is signficant. Pefection is the enemy of good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraew (talk • contribs) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is significant, do you have a source saying so? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Leeds[edit]

Hi

You deleted a block of text and reference about Arthur Louis Aaron VC. This was intended to explain why he is listed as non-Jewish, as per the genealogical records his family have supplied. I realise this is not the best quality citation but I have seen the records and they are as yet unpublished. I have offered to submit a paper to genealogical journal and the family is thinking about it. Rather than me just reverse your change, could we compromise on this so that the listing makes some sense? Thanks Philip Sugarman (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any published sources supporting what you propose to include? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People playground[edit]

Hi in my page people playground, I do not understand why you removed some content, please provide details why. Thank you! Yodas henchman (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yodas henchman. First off, Wikipedia is not a game guide - lists of achievements and the like are generally not appropriate for inclusion. See WP:VGSCOPE. Second, open wikis like Fandom are generally not reliable sources. See WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"US" not needed[edit]

Hello. We don't need to add the name or initials of the United States when we already have the name of a state. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, see the template documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you will excuse me, that is just ridiculous. "Only the most pertinent information should be included. Please remove unused parameters, and refrain from inserting dubious trivia in an attempt to fill all parameters." Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile, if you feel the birth or death places are "dubious trivia", you're welcome to propose they be removed. But if they're kept, we cannot assume that our global audience is familiar with US geography. Which is why the documentation is written the way it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to get into a time-wasting conversation about something so obvious as Los Angeles, California, being in the United States. If any reader does not know that fact ("Uh, where is 'California' again?"), a click on the internal link for that city will give the info. There is such a guideline as WP:Overlink. In the meantime, it is simply nonprofessional (from an editor's point of view) to cram unneeded stuff into an article. Best wishes anyway.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than Overlink, the relevant guidelines are Linkstyle (don't force readers to follow links to understand) and Audience (make the article accessible and understandable for a global audience). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mentoring on a Good Article review[edit]

Hi there. I'm getting into reviewing Good Article nominations and I found your name on the list of mentors. If you are available to help, that would be great. I am committed to reviewing the article on the Erdős–Straus conjecture, and I have drafted my review in my sandbox. Thanks for any help you can provide, HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HenryCrun15, generally speaking your review seems to be comprehensive and appropriately targeted to the GA criteria. A couple of specific thoughts:
  • In your comments on 1b, you seem to be using the word heading/header for the lead section. This is potentially confusing, since that term is more often used for the headings in the table of contents.
  • All of the issues raised in 1b relate to the lead - did you note any issues related to any of the other style guidelines mentioned?
Other than those minor points I think this looks to be a very good review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Find_a_Grave Wikipedia has a "findagrave" template — what you makes you think findagrave is an unreliable source?

See its entry at WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Findagrave links to a Reliable source, I use it. What do you say? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it links to a reliable source, why not just go to that link and cite that? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review[edit]

I am initiating a formal FA review for Zelda Fitzgerald, an article which you edited in the past. Your input there and further contributions to the article would be welcome. — Flask (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2021[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

This Month in GLAM: December 2021[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.

hiya, do you have any advice on what a "better source" could be for a cast? I don't have any clue.[edit]

I own the boxset featuring the episodes with Peter Sellers appearing in Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In and so before I added his episodes I looked up the relationship between IMDb and Wikipedia and per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, it seemed like it was completely suitable, but just frowned upon. However I don't know of any other databases that will have a guest star list for such an old American show. I would really appreciate the guidance ty ty. - missus peter sellers 13:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible for example that reviews of the show might include mention of guest stars. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rowan_%26_Martin%27s_Laugh-In_episodes#Series_overview but the only source on this page is IMDb, I didn't just cite IMDb out of laziness, it's a fine source. Where would I find reviews of those 3 episodes? Considering I'm in England and a U.S. newspaper or TV listings archive would most likely be subscription based or even geographically locked to America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed pages that cite IMDb; that doesn't mean IMDb is a fine source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and the discussions linked from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


hiya, but it's nigh on impossible to find episode by episode reviews of the show, which will be necessary as I will need to have a source for all 3 eps that he was in. I've got 2 new sources, they're the only ones I could find outside of somewhere like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb. Could you let me know if they're suitable? 

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/2d8008b06a56440f87522b42b096a5b5
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/295e9b99a7b94886a9b6b84049ef5b5c

The third episode may never have aired here so I can't find it. Do you know where I could find a suitable source for that episode? Tiny Tim was in it too.

I'm still confused as to why on the page for the show in question IMDb is the only source for cast, but it can't be the source for cast on the page I'm editing - I couldn't find an answer to that on the page you've linked, I'm sorry if I'm missing something. ty ty for any help you may have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PeterSelIers! All three episodes of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In with Peter Sellers that you are trying to reference are listed at Rotten Tomatoes, here, here & here. Rotten Tomatoes, other than User reviews, is considered reliable by most & is very frequently used as a reference on tons of Wiki pages. So you should be safe using that to suppourt his appearances in the show. Hope this is of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes[edit]

Thanks for everything. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles Municipal Building[edit]

Hello,

I do not wish to go to war with you, and I do not understand why it is important to you to delete trivia about our city hall from its Wikipedia page. We do not publish articles, so do not have additional sources you demanded when you originally deleted this information from the page.

There was a consensus of approval on the BioShock Wiki to add it there which can be read on the talk page for the article. The BioShock Wiki follows standards strictly and is an actively moderated Wiki. I say that only because you criticized their credibility originally.

I can only say, as a volunteer with the St. Charles Historical Society, I discovered this information and presented it because people from St. Charles found it exciting that our town has a connection to a AAA game.

I do not know your investment in the subject, but I want to provide people with what I know about this building from my experience studying it. I understand you may continue to challenge and remove the information from the page, but there seems to be no good reason in doing so. Besides me, user Doncram stepped in originally and disagreed with removing the content. However, you still persist to delete it.

I am sorry that my passion for my town's history somehow made it onto your radar, but I will not give up on it because to hide this information from people serves no purpose I can think of. It seems unlikely based on the visual appearance alone that anyone can deny that the lighthouse is based on the Municipal Building. To confirm it though, I made the effort to contact the designer before posting it online. It is beyond me, how everything together is unacceptable to you and must be deleted. VerVynck (talk • contribs) 23:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted, Fandom wikis - no matter how actively moderated - are not considered reliable. If there is no better sourcing available, that is unfortunate, but it doesn't make it appropriate to use that as a source, and doesn't fulfill the burden of providing reliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent then that you will not accept anything else. Is it reasonable to agree to leave the section flagged as it has been for the past two years as a compromise ? VerVynck (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to accept a reliable source, if one exists. If one does not exist, as you say, then unfortunately the claim should be left out. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why were you content to have the information there with the notice about the source for all this time ? And you deleted the whole thing again and the picture. Really ? Why do you want to fight over this out of all the things in the world and all the information on Wikipedia, why is this such an issue ? This is such a silly little thing, but it means something to me, enough to waste my time on here trying to keep it from being deleted. So here we go again. VerVynck (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline has changed since the last discussion. The burden to provide reliable sourcing, however, has not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox basketball biography[edit]

Hi there. Regarding the template and WP:INFONAT, the long-standing convention for this template has been not to list the country when it essentially duplicates the listed nationality. If the country is not in the birthplace, the nationality cannot be explicitly inferred, so there is no conflict with INFONAT.—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bagumba, as noted the INFONAT guideline doesn't mention anything about duplication of other parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to put it another way. The "birth_place" description for the template has long read "Do not list country if consistent with nationality". Thus, it seems redundant to add to "nationality": "Avoid using if can be inferred from country of birth, per WP:INFONAT".—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The central MOS job takes precedence though, so if there is redundancy it's the other way around. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I dont read the MOS as saying that all infoboxes must add country to birthplace if it didnt already exist there.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that. What it says is that nationality shouldn't be added if it can be inferred from country of birth. However, if this in combination with existing documentation means that we end up not mentioning country at all, that can only be addressed by changing the documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using a specific example like Harold Miner, where the listed birthplace is Inglewood, California, and nationality is shown as American, does INFONAT require a change to the page, in your opinion?—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The country of birth is the US, and so nationality should not be included per INFONAT. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also saying add "U.S." to the birthplace, effectively per INFONAT?—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I am saying that given this change in central guidance, it would make sense for the documentation to be updated. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your position now, though I may not necessarily agree. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru's driving side and dialling code[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Please put on a mask and join the conversation here to discuss your issues about needing to delete the information on Nauru's driving side and dialling code.

Happy Editing ;), Put a mask on mate! (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glencoe[edit]

Sorry, my confusion (too early in the morning) :) 13:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Columbia picture[edit]

Hello! I want to run a question about using a picture by a more experienced image reviewer. I found an image in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (page 49 at this link} report that I want to use on the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. It showed the Space Shuttle and circled the areas where foam fell of the external tank and where the foam impacted. However, I want only able to get a low-resolution image when I tried to pull the image from the report (using a screen capture), even when I used the hi-res version of the report. Instead, I decided to find the original NASA photo, which I uploaded. I then proceeded to circled the same locations as the report on the image, and uploaded that as well.

  • Original NASA photo
    Original NASA photo
  • Photo with circles added
    Photo with circles added

I don't think there should be a licensing issue, as this image was created by NASA and is in the public domain. But I think this might be breaking WP:OR rules, and I want to get another opinion. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balon Greyjoy, there are some specific rules regarding OR and images that should cover this case. So long as the sources for both the photo and the circle placement are clearly identified in the image description that should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. It seems like this type of photo manipulation is allowed, as it isn't distorting anything about the original image. Appreciate the help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Herzlia Schools neutral tone proof reading[edit]

Hi I just spent a long time trying to address the issues brought up by you could you check if it is satisfactory — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotJeffcohen123 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NotJeffcohen123, thanks for your work on that. I do think that there is still too much emphasis on the controversy, and that that section in particular employs over-quoting. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022[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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Herzlia Schools neutral tone proof reading and change in format[edit]

Hi after much consideration I decided to abbreviate the controversies section to a much smaller and quoteless format I want to check if that is alright until then I'm going to remove the warning from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotJeffcohen123 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Find sources twl[edit]

Template:Find sources twl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen read online at Bookwise[edit]

Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and so I recognise that I don't yet know what makes good practise and what does not.

I added a link to the Jane Austen page to read her works online at Bookwise. I believe that is a useful service which is not the same as Project Gutenberg and other online editions, or links to epub files, etc. Bookwise is a full-featured online reader, not just a web page of the text - so Bookwise keeps your location, allows notes and marks, etc. Unlike with a web page, you can comfortably read a whole book there.

Is that not a legitimate external link? If not, please could you explain why - I'm keen to understand. Thanks, Reachneville (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)reachneville[reply]

Hi Reachneville, our external links guideline provides information on the use of external links in articles. One thing it emphasizes is that the section should be kept to a minimum. That particular article already has several links to places where Austen's works can be read, and while I can appreciate you feel this one in particular has some neat features, I don't agree that justifies continued expansion of the list (you'll see I removed a couple other links at the same time). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's helpful to know. I still think the link is valid, since it's the only version which actually allows the reader to comfortably read the text rather than just reference it... but for now I understand that's a moot point :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachneville (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 48[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

  • 1Lib1Ref 2022
  • Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn, BWV 157[edit]

On 6 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn, BWV 157, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bach's cantata Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn was first performed 295 years ago today during a memorial service for Johann Christoph von Ponickau (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn, BWV 157. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ich lasse dich nicht, du segnest mich denn, BWV 157), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

February songs
frozen

Thank you for expanding the article long ago, and helping now. I decorated my talk. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. I nominated Kathleen Ferrier for TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review for my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may have see - or remember - that "I stand here and sing", from Bach's motet, was my response to the 2013 arbcase about infoboxes. I suggest we apply User:RexxS/Infobox factors to Cosima Wagner and other cases, instead of looking and imagining which former editor wanted what regarding an accessibilty feature. Other guidance comes from Brian Boulton: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatches: "I see plenty of infoboxes. They have been a feature of WP articles for years now, and it seems obvious that they can provide a useful service to readers who want a few specific facts about a subject, rather than an in-depth study. What is the population of Salzburg? Who was Henry II of England married to? How many first-class wickets did Jack Hobbs take? The infoboxes are there to give these answers." - I like the TFP today, for Falstaff. In that context, I asked project opera (not classical music) about CW. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stand and sing again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about a false edit summary for undoing your change to Cosima Wagner. More precisely: Per WP:MOSBIO, the first line should never include place of birth and place of death. These two items, like ethnicity and others, should only appear in the lead at all (but then not its first sentence) when relevant. My understanding.- As I said in the edit summary: I'd like to see that changed, but as long as it's teh rulez, we better obey. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

next song: Prayer for Ukraine, with a history from 1995 to 2022, - the article a work in progress, help wanted - translation of some of it would also help --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the French version! I took the pic in 2009, and it was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

puzzled by your nonRS undo of my changes yesterday to Vulcan Gas Company[edit]

I'm a very sporadic contributor to Wikipedia and not up to date on rules and etiquette. I wasn't aware until yesterday of the Fandom page for VGC. I, and Don Hyde, VGC co-founder, discussed the Fandom page vs. the Dennis Hickey page that has been cited for years in the VGC article. Don and I both prefer the Fandom page as clearer in its citations and offering better images of the cited posters/handbills. I don't want to counter Wikipedia etiquette, but I think the Fandom page is at least as reliable as the Hickey page. I inserted cite to it before cite to Dennis' page since they are similar and the Fandom page seems a better source. Please reconsider your rm. CharlieSauer (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharlieSauer, open wikis like Fandom are considered generally unreliable by community consensus. If you think there's a reason why this particular one ought to be considered an exception to that, I would suggest making your case at the reliable sources noticeboard. Note though that comparing it to another source you believe to be poorer is more likely to end with that one removed than this one added! Alternatively, if you are affiliated with VCG it might make sense to host the posters/handbills on the official website already linked? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states, the current "Vulcan Gas Company" has no relation to the 1960s-1970 one besides the name, and the article is about the original one. There is no relevant official Web site for historic VGC. I certainly don't want to disparage the Hickey page, it is ok, but the article primarily cites his page for images of VGC posters, and his images aren't nearly as good as the ones at the Fandom images. I just added a missing image to the Fandom collection scanned from my original copy. I generally don't know much about Fandom, as I said, I just discovered https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company yesterday. Since Don and I were primary in operating VGC in 1960s-70, he and I can vouch for the accuracy of https://concerts.fandom.com/wiki/Vulcan_Gas_Company. Having said that, I'm not sure what to do next. I guess I can try the RS noticeboard. CharlieSauer (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by your reversion from a Wikidata powered Infobox[edit]

Like the person above, I'm a sporadic contributor to Wikipedia (though I'd like to change that), and I was curious about your reversion of my changes here. I've also noticed that you reverted a similar change on the same page a while ago. Regarding my changes, I tried to make sure that the Wikidata powered infobox was as close to the original one as possible. Doing this even lead me having to put a source in Wikidata that Antoine Duhamel is the son of Georges Duhamel, as the Wikidata template disallows unsourced references to offspring. What lead me to editing this page is that the infobox for Georges Duhamel is an example for the usage of Template:Infobox person/Wikidata, yet on the actual page for Georges Duhamel it isn't using the template which seemed odd to me.

As you probably know, the benefit of having a Wikidata infobox is that it can be shared across Wikipedias, and as the French version of the page has much more information in the infobox, and the infobox is also connected to Wikidata due to the use of the template https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Infobox_Biographie2, we could easily get some more information for "free".

If there is something that I'm not considering, please let me know, otherwise please consider reverting. Thanks!

Veyndan (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here. Why would you change a good infobox to one that has the same information but uglier? While there is a chance that it will at some point be improved at Wikidata, there is just as much chance that it will be vandalized with the vandalism then rapidly spreading to multiple different languages without anyone noticing it, as already happens regularly with mainly French, Spanish, Catalan, ... Wikipedia (plus Commons). María de Estrada had a porn picture displayed on these Wikipedias last week for 6 hours because of Wikidata vandalism. They now have an equally silly but at least not pornographic photograph on them, as offered by Wikidata as a "depiction" of what she and her opponents looked like (hint, it's rather terribly and stupidly wrong, but some photographer and "actors" are presumably happy this way). That's the kind of stuff Wikidata infoboxes produce, not the mythical major spreading of good information they are supposed to bring. Fram (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Local display also allows for more flexibility around deciding what to include or not and how that is styled (eg including a country name for location). Looking at the French example you link, a lot of the content they display is actually supplied locally rather than pulled, perhaps for that reason. (A lot of what is being pulled there wouldn't be included here, either because it's unsourced or because the template simply doesn't pull those fields). But perhaps you could elaborate: if you sought to make your version as close to the original as possible - and so included only the fields that were already there - then what do you see as the benefit? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2022[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.

Intelligence Star - Recipient Deletions[edit]

In your 23:34, 22 June 2020 revision to the Intelligence Star article, you deleted information about three recipients: Maureen Devlin, Nate Chapman, and Michael Patrick Mulroy. You wrote no revision comment explaining what you did. Did you find the sources unconvincing? I see that the sources include The Daily Mail, The Chicago Tribune, and The Department of Defense website. I just found another article [1] pointing at a cia.gov document [2] supporting the Devlin entry, although the CIA do not name her.

Thanks Erichschlaikjer (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I found that the Daily Mail is forbidden[3]. That explains Devlin. Do you think the new links are sufficient for her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichschlaikjer (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think those sources would be sufficient. I didn't remove Chapman or Mulroy though - they're still listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and sorry that I misinterpreted the edit history! Erichschlaikjer (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Declassified CIA Reports Reveal the Youngest Recipient of the Intelligence Star". Clearance Jobs. 2015-02-26. Archived from the original on 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ [Perennial sources]

Sic[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, despite the documentation, the 'sic' template, using 'nolink', doesn't cause any COinS issues when used within the 'title' parameter of the 'cite web' template. One of the few places. Neils51 (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neils51, if that's the case I'd suggest updating the documentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-QWERTY characters[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. I see that you have reverted my recent edits to O Canada. As mentioned, non-standard characters on the afflicted lines are displaying error boxes in both the source code, and in the article, in PC display mode. What non-QWERTY characters belong amidst a body of text?

  1. Please delete the non-QWERTY characters from the lyrical text.
  2. If option 1 is unsatisfactory, then {{Contains special characters}} needs to be added to the top of the article.

Thank you for your cooperation. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJDOS, I'm not sure what errors you're referring to as the lines seem to display properly, but I've added the tag. The characters in question concern musical notation of the lyrics. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria, for applying option 2; a satisfactory solution. However, I'm still puzzled as to why the error boxes display in the article's source code (as stated, the error doesn't display at your end). I can only assume that it's a late edition to the Unicode set—a valid image character that functions the same as Unicode text—and thus is also acceptable in signatures (see User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)#Help with signatures). Would you concur with this hypothesis? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an alternative explanation, so that seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reliable sources[edit]

I see you have been removing citations to sources that are not considered reliable. With some of these it might be better to leave the source but flag it with {{Unreliable source?}}. That way a student can see where the information came from, but can also see that it should be treated with caution. Alternatively, you should replace the citation with {{fact}}. Simply removing the source may give the misleading impression that the dubious claim is supported by the next citation. Thus:

Smith ate nothing but pasta and raw eggs all his life.[13] He lived to the age of 115.[9]

could become

Smith ate nothing but pasta and raw eggs all his life.[13][unreliable source?] He lived to the age of 115.[9]

or perhaps

Smith ate nothing but pasta and raw eggs all his life.[citation needed] He lived to the age of 115.[9]

which would both be better than

Smith ate nothing but pasta and raw eggs all his life. He lived to the age of 115.[9]

Hope this helps, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons[edit]

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Greetings from Venice. I hope you are well. You’ve been very helpful in the past in resolving several image-related matters, and I am hoping that you would be willing to take a look at the tags and licenses for the images used in St Mark's Basilica. The article is currently nominated for FA. I need to be upfront, however, that there was an immediate 'oppose' by one of the coordinators. Other reviewers have disagreed with her positions, but I understand if you’d rather not get involved. At any rate, thank you again for your help in the past.Venicescapes (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venicescapes, I can take a look, but before I do: are you aware of the oddities around reproduction of Italian cultural heritage works? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your expertise, willingness, and time. I am familiar with the FOP oddities, although I am admittedly unclear about some aspects (the Italian government has a remarkable capacity to create confusion).
There are four types of images used on St Mark's Basilica:
1) Graphics that I created, modifying pre-existing ones. I specified the original sources which were either (a) already uploaded on Commons with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license or (b) old maps and plans (nineteenth century)
2) Eighteenth and nineteenth-century paintings and a sixteenth-century engraving. For the paintings, I specified the museum. I also placed a general and US specific PD tag
3) Interior photos of the basilica found on Commons. For these I placed a general and US specific PD tag, plus the MIBAC template
4) Exterior photos of the basilica found on Commons. For these I placed a general and US specific PD tag
For the tags, I largely copied what was done for the article on the Biblioteca Marciana. Please let me know if I am still missing something. Again thank you for your guidance.Venicescapes (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esplanade Riel[edit]

Hello, I am not sure what you mean by “this one is more visible at this size”.. The other image was just as easily viewed from the info box. 50.71.165.150 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the image is displayed at quite a small size, which means that any foreground or background interference in the image reduces how well one can actually see the bridge. The first of the two proposed alternatives has a cloudy background which makes it hard to discern the light-coloured bridge, and the second has a lot of vegetation in the foreground. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria I was wondering if you could help me with someone, I’ve seen your edits and I want to know how to create redirects. Could you please create a redirect from Katie Redford (actress) to List of The Archers characters as there is already a Katie Redford on Wikipedia and I think it would help to distinguish. Thanks Rockchick09 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rockchick09, I'm not sure that particular page would be a good target for a redirect - it doesn't really tell us anything about the actress other than the name of a character. If you're looking for an option short of a full article, I'd recommend instead setting up a disambiguation page to distinguish her from the existing article subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death Alma Rosé[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I believe the source you used in your last edit to the article Alma Rosé is incorrect. The author of that article (which I can't read as it has a paywall) probably made a mistake. Both the Stolperstein of hers placed in Salzburg (see here) and the tombstone of her and her parents in Vienna (see here) leave little room for doubt in my opinion. Wikidata also has multiple sources confirming April 4, 1944 as her date of death. Could you please correct this accordingly? Thanks. StuivertjeWisselen (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like sources disagree about the precise date, which is unsurprising under the circumstances. For that reason presenting both possibilities seems appropriate, although if desired a footnote could be added specifying the memorials you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally place more value on what's on both memorials and sources close to the family like the Mahler Foundation (here) say about this - if there were any real doubt about her death date that would have been written there too - but I can live with your suggestion. StuivertjeWisselen (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FASA[edit]

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Nikkimaria! Your work on Great Fire of London has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, DrKay (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do so much here. You must deserve a billion of these. Many thanks. DrKay (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria, and so much more-- for example, all of those tough-to-keep-up-with cities and countries you keep in shape! A well deserved star. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Costs[edit]

Anyting that could be added, removed or worded betterr?? DrawbacksMoxy- 01:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Spam paramater[edit]

Template talk:Infobox country#electricity. Was added in 2019 with zero talk.Moxy- 23:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2022[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.

Copyright question for colorized images[edit]

A bunch of colorized ship images have been proposed for deletion on the basis that colorizing the out-of-copyright B/W images is an artistic process giving the colorizer copyright. A four-year-old discussion basically said, "Maybe", but I'd like to get some clarity on the issue. I'd welcome your input at [3]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, before I do that, is there any information on the source site on the colourization process used? Unfortunately I don't read Japanese. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to you, but I've been mostly off Wiki these last couple of months. There does seem to be some subtlety to the colorizer's work so I wouldn't think that it's an automated process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - unfortunately that would weigh towards sufficient originality for US protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but you'll have to decide for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Yasin[edit]

You have recently "clean up" the article and deleted death_cause from the infobox and reinserted "accessdate" parameters to the references instead of access-date which is the default. May I learn the reasons for these "clean up" changes? Thanks, --Egeymi (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Egeymi, |death_cause= should only be included when significant to notability, per the template documentation. If you prefer to revert the other changes that's up to you, but that removal should be restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me about it, I will delete the |death_cause=, --Egeymi (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 49[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

  • New library collections
  • Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

User:Nikkimar - left a note at their TP. Eagleash (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

help with Bach[edit]

March songs

Thank you for your help with Bach's works and his No. 1 especially today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace infobox[edit]

Hi there. Hope you are well. Was just wondering about your edit on the Buckingham Palace page, reverting the creation of the infobox. I felt the page could use with an infobox, given it is one of the only major palaces not to have one. Did you have an issue with the formatting of the box? Best, Caledonianl (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Buckingham Palace/Archive 3#RfC about infobox. This is the current consensus of the community. Sea Cow (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Caledonianl, as noted in my edit summary, there is a discussion on the article's talk page on this topic - I'd suggest participating there if you'd like to propose adding the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thank you for your swift reply and for clarifying. Hope you have a lovely day! Caledonianl (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FA for H.D.?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have read a bit through the article H.D., a remarkable woman, no doubt, but her life seems much more interesting than described after having read some more about her on the internet. I asked at the talk page if the FA status is still merited which I currently doubt, but after not having received an answer I didn't know how to ask for a reassessment. If an editor could add some info and source some phrases it might be good.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paradise Chronicle, since you haven't received a response at the talk page, your next step would be to nominate the article at WP:FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 March 2022[edit]

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022[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) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Callendar Navigation Company[edit]

I see that you have re-instated your edit to Callendar Navigation Company regarding FindaGrave citations. These are put in only to show the dates of birth and of death of persons named in the article. There is nothing controversial about that as far as I can see. Also you have gone ahead and deleted dates of birth and death in all cases. In fact there are other sources such as obituaries, which are cited in the article, which supply either a date of birth or a date of death, but not both. By deleted both without consulting the sources, which are all linked, you are deleting substantive material from the article at least in some cases. Please consider alternative means, such as flagging sources which you believe to be unreliable, and or submit repeated edits for consensus review.Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mtsmallwood, even in cases where there is reliable sourcing, this is not content that ought to be included per MOS:BIRTHDATE. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was not stated as the basis for your edit.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the edit summary for the revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious[edit]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Thank you for consistent quality control! I hope to get back to the cantata today, - began too many things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Carlos Schwarz[edit]

Thanx for showing me the way to layout the Infobox, specifically not linking country name in the Infobox. Gadogado123 (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image question - can we upload an image that's likely 160 years old?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have an image / public domain question, and I thought I'd ask you about it, if you don't mind. The question is whether we could copy and upload to the Commons an image from the University of Calcutta webpage. The image is of James William Colvile, the first Vice-Chancellor of the University, 1857 to 1859: https://www.caluniv.ac.in/about/vc.html. If it were available, it could be useful both for the List of vice-chancellors of the University of Calcutta, and also for the Colvile bio. If the photo were taken when Colvile was at the university, it would be 160+ years old. Since he died in 1880, at the latest it would be 140+ years old. Would an image in these circumstances be considered public domain? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, do we know anything about the publication history of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that it's on the UCalcutta webpage. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So we can be pretty sure that it's in the public domain in its country of origin. If that webpage was its first publication, then it's probably also public domain in the US - but if it wasn't, that may not be the case (see the Hirtle chart). I'd suggest doing a bit of checking to see if you can track down any earlier uses of the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2022[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.

Hans Berger: cause of death[edit]

I won't argue with your deletion of the cause of death from the article, or try to revert it, but I point out that you directed me to Infobox Person, whereas I used Infobox Scientist, for which the template does not mention the restriction. Why include it in the template if you're not supposed to use it? Athel cb (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox scientist}} is a wrapper for {{infobox person}}. As to why include it in the template, there are many parameters in the template that are not always, or even not often used, but are included for the few cases where it is appropriate to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of University of Cambridge in popular culture for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Cambridge in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Cambridge in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian provinces currently with Conservative-based gov't[edit]

Howdy. I don't mind if we show'em as "PC", "UCP", "CAQ" or fully written out. But I would rather that we have as much consistency as possible. Instead of reverting me (not sure why you singled out Manitoba), bring the general topic up at WP:CANADA. Two options - Do we use abbreviations or do we not. PS - Saskatchewan's gov't party, is a unique situation, however. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the topic up, at WP:CANADA. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to impose a single consistent approach on this issue, I suggest you change the other articles to make them accessible to a broader audience. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, please stop edit-warring on this point. There is no actual need for articles to be stylistically identical per MOS, but if this consistency is something you want to pursue, the model from Manitoba is clearly better supported by both MOS and WP:AUDIENCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you being a tad stubborn? Again, join the discussion at WP:CANADA or change remove all acronyms from all the provinces. Singling out Manitoba, isn't helpful. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, you're the one insisting on all articles having the same style - if you want to remove other acronyms knock yourself out. But there's no requirement for them to all be the same, and as I've already explained there are good reasons not to use these acronyms. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, bring your argument to WP:CANADA. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of country not needed with U.S. states[edit]

Hello. This edit was erroneous. It's obvious that NYC is in the USA. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeenAroundAWhile, this edit was erroneous - per the template documentation the listing includes country (and one of the examples provided there is specifically NYC). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your point. Any well-edited news source will omit the nation for a place like New York, N.Y., or London, England. Are you saying that Wikipedia has different "rules"? Remember, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Please elucidate. I am happy to get your opinion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, we're not a news source, we're a global encyclopedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review question[edit]

Nikki, I'm starting to do more source reviews (perhaps on the principle that I've made and fixed every possible source formatting mistake, so I should now be an expert). I have a question about the usage of the website/work and publisher parameters in {{cite web}}. I've seen several cases where nominators are confused about website vs. work, evidently thinking they're different parameters, and putting domain names (e.g. "cnn.com") in for "work", and website names (e.g. "CNN") for "website". In the former case people seem likely to put "CNN" in for the publisher, since they're aware that should probably go somewhere. In those cases I've been telling the nominators that they should use "CNN", and it doesn't matter whether they use "website" or "work", but that they shouldn't use "publisher" in those cases if the publisher is identical to or obvious from the website.

Let me know if any of the above is incorrect. My question is what to recommend when the website is left out but the publisher is put in. For example, an article at FAC now has a cite to this page. The citation gives "Statistics Canada" as the publisher, which is correct, but which would be unnecessary if the website parameter were filled in. As a source reviewer, do you require this to be changed, or do you let it go? If the publisher did not directly imply the webpage, I would raise it in a source review, but here the two are identical.

A related question: this page is cited (in the same article) and that citation has "author = Canadian Bar Association", and no website or publisher parameter, both of which would also naturally be "Canadian Bar Association". Is there any reason to complain about this? I think it's OK as it stands because the link is to a document, and the citation gives all the relevant information about the document. If it were to a webpage with similar information I'd be inclined to suggest changing the parameter from "author" to "website", but again I'm not certain there's much value to the change.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, the general rule at FAC is consistency. If the citations consistently use publisher in cases like you describe, then that's no problem; if sometimes the article uses website, sometimes publisher, and you can't identify a consistent rationale, that's something that should be raised. (Keep in mind too that editors can choose to follow an external style guide, some of which can be ridiculously redundant, or make up their own style - as long as it's correct and consistent, it works).
As for CBA, the author in that case is a subgroup rather than CBA itself, so just saying author=CBA is not a good solution. I would recommend listing CBA as publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both those answers are very helpful. I'll review some more and if you happen to notice errors or omissions in my source reviews, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May Women in Red events[edit]

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Red-Haired Shanks vote[edit]

Thank you for your edits to the Red-Haired Shanks article. Currently a user proposed it is an article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red-Haired_Shanks. Feel free to make your opinion known. --Plumber (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chicago Police Department in popular culture for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago Police Department in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Police Department in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mentor[edit]

Hello there Nikkimaria,

I recently opened a peer-review on a current GA video game (Hollow Knight) that I seek to eventually promote to FA. I have attempted to familiarize myself with the criteria, but would like a mentor to comment on the review to see if there are any problems that I need to fix before it can be considered for a review. I only seek some advice on the Peer Review, because I hope to start with some other GAs before I can tackle the Featured status. If you can spare some time, I would appreciate a quick look.

Thanks, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CollectiveSolidarity, I can give you some general comments, but I'd definitely suggest bringing in an editor with expertise in video games for more insight.
  • File:Hollow_Knight_PC_gameplay_screenshot.jpg: the fair-use rationale here is basically the same as for the lead image - in order to justify having multiple non-free images, there needs to be a clear reason why both are necessary. I'd suggest rewriting it.
  • IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source - suggest replacing that. For all sources, think about how you would support their reliability if questioned.
  • Check that all citations are complete. For example, footnote 13 has a false title ("Archived copy")
  • Check that all citations are consistently formatted. For example, footnotes 38 and 39 are both to Kotaku sites, but look different. Generally speaking, you should be able to articulate clear "rules" about how you're formatting citations, and ensure that all citations follow those. So if I asked "Why is there no retrieval date on footnote 20", you should be able to either give an answer, or you should change it
  • If you can, avoid having one-paragraph sections
  • Consider reorganizing the Sequel section - the sentences don't seem to flow logically. You could do something like 'sequel was announced in 2019 but no release date - platforms - plot - previous plans - kickstarter'.
  • Why is sheet music under Reception?
  • I'm noticing some phrasing throughout that seems a bit tangled - I'd suggest you try reading the article out loud to see where you stumble. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to barge in here (this was brought to my attention from a Teahouse post), however "File:Hollow_Knight_PC_gameplay_screenshot.jpg: the fair-use rationale here is basically the same as for the lead image - in order to justify having multiple non-free images, there needs to be a clear reason why both are necessary. I'd suggest rewriting it." the reason the fair-use rationale is the same as for the lead image is because the word "Section" in that specific part of the template, will automatically generate that reasoning. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was my teahouse post by the way. I was asking how to edit the fair use rationale on the file. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blaze Wolf, I appreciate that, but that's not a good approach here - the "Section" designation is intended for cases where there is a section devoted to the video game in a larger article, as opposed to a section within a larger video game article. CollectiveSolidarity, if you change 'section' to 'other' you will be able to add a custom purpose field. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sahariar Rokon Children[edit]

Hi There! I’ve seen that you removed the names of the spouse and children on Al Sahariar Rokon’s page. If either child of him were to add their names in and his spouses name in as they are directly related to him. Would Wikipedia allow them to keep it? Also reliability is on his actual Facebook page. 2407:7000:946E:8A00:CCE1:14F:7577:4ACE (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, no - I'd suggest having a look at our policy on biographies of living people, particularly the sections on naming family members. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite journal vs. cite magazine[edit]

Another source reviewing question, if you have a moment. Does it matter if an article mixes up {{cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}}? I'm reviewing an article in which some magazines are treated as journals. Are there any significant formatting differences? Or can I just let it go? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same question here, as someone (or a bot, can't recall) changed cite journals to cite magazine at J. K. Rowling. I suspect they render the same, and wonder why it matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike and Sandy, as you can see here, there are some very minor differences:

  • Last, First (10 January 1000). Edisorius, Sir (ed.). "Journal Article". Journal Title. 10 (20). Lady Translator. London: Sage: 300.
  • Last, First (10 January 1000). Edisorius, Sir (ed.). "Magazine Article". Magazine Title. Vol. 10, no. 20. Lady Translator. London: Sage. p. 300.

That being said, as long as the article was internally consistent, I wouldn't fuss with changing back and forth. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki ... irritating when someone changes only one, but I'm going to ignore it in the case of JKR, since it's a relatively minor issue. I am back home, my first COVID test thankfully negative after most of wedding party got COVID, so I should be back in the saddle at FAR in a few days, after I catch up around the house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, hopefully stays that way. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki. So if someone uses cite journal exclusively or cite magazine exclusively that's OK. If they use both, I would expect some reasoning behind the choice. If an article seems to jump from cite journal to cite magazine and back at random, would you raise it at FAC? I think I would. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Grant culls[edit]

With upright as 0.4
Just upright
With upright as 1.3

Nikkimaria, I agree with your recent culls from the Cary Grant article. I took the liberty of restoring three of the photographs, though, with far greater care regarding contextual placement along with reductions in size for all them. I just glanced at your list of contributions and you make me (and everyone with whom I'm familiar) look like a slouch in comparison. Keep up the good work, thank you for your sharp eye, and it's a privilege to say hello to you. Racing Forward (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Racing Forward, thanks for the kind words. However, I'm still concerned about the images. The issue isn't contextual placement, but MOS:SANDWICH - in cases like this where there are many potentially relevant images, we need to be a bit selective to avoid layout problems. I'd also suggest having a look at MOS:IMGSIZE: while it is possible to reduce size by fixing a number of pixels, it's almost always better to do it using |upright= so we can respect user preferences with regards to image scale. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkemaria. I adjusted the two photographs for which I'd reduced by pixel numbers to |upright= and they both fit the layout much better than my original choice. I don't think the page looks at all crowded and that the illustrations enhance the article. Nothing looks sandwiched at present. Your deletion of the three pictures from the "Relationships" section did the look and feel of the article a world of good from more than one standpoint. Thanks for pointing out the fallacy of reducing the pixel amounts lower than |upright=, it's obviously the better choice and I'll adhere to that in the future. If there isn't space to accommodate that size, there's no need for a picture there. Racing Forward (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Racing Forward, just so you're aware, you can use |upright= to scale an image up or down, see right. The difference is that it scales relative to user-set default image size - so if for example your default size is set to 200px and mine is set to 300px, the images will be objectively larger on my screen than yours. So you can make images smaller than the upright default, although generally speaking I wouldn't suggest doing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria, that's good to know. I'll refrain from using it but it's great to be aware of it. Of course I'd seen that being done without really knowing exactly what it was, and had been meaning to check that out. This is excellent information. Racing Forward (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2022[edit]



Headlines
  • Australia report: Growing the record of Australian Music
  • Belgium report: About African Pagnes and Belgian music
  • Brazil report: Brazil wins the first place in WLM 2021
  • France report: French GLAM meeting
  • Italy report: Work with GLAMs on Wikisourse and Wikimedia Commons
  • Mexico report: GLAM professionals add an image and become Wikipedians; Edificio Carolino Edit-a-thon
  • New Zealand report: People in Paleontology, Digikult, and copyright term extension for New Zealand
  • Nigeria report: Wikidata for Nigerian Novelist and Novel
  • Poland report: Wikiresidence in progress and workshop Evolution in GLAM in Poland
  • Serbia report: Important activities within the GLAM
  • Sweden report: Training at the National Archives of Sweden; Training at the Stockholm City Museum; Training at the Swedish National Museum of Science and Technology; Improved images from Swedish Performing Arts Agency
  • Switzerland report: Wikidata Coffee Breaks
  • UK report: Khalili Collections
  • Uruguay report: Wikimedistas de Uruguay report
  • USA report: WVU Libraries; Earth Day-2022-SWC; Wiki-Gap
  • AvoinGLAM report: Open Access vs NFT, GLAM School, Saami language, family trees
  • Content Partnerships Hub report: Enter our logo competition; IGO/INGO; Needs assessments research results; Wrapping up some ISA-things
  • WMF GLAM report: 1Lib1Ref, Image Description Week, Commons calls, and the Add an image events
  • Calendar: May's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

News I think you'll love to hear[edit]

I got around to it: {{Infobox radio station}} now has a country field! So, every time you see one of those pesky radio stations of mine, now there's a country field just for the country. (It supports shortcodes like US, FR, KE, and about 30 countries in all, too.) I don't have the short descriptions dialed in to have the country on them (the code at Infobox television station should have supported this but doesn't work that way in practice), but I know this will be news to your ears in particular. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

this isn't the first time you've blocked one of my edits do you not have anything better to do with your life than sit on Wikipedia and remove something that can clearly be validated by a quick google search because "the source isn't enough" A Mallard Duck (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was citing a Fandom wiki, which we generally consider unreliable. I've restored the content by citing it to a more reliable source. (talk page stalker) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undo valid edits[edit]

Hello, Please do not undo valid edits. This edit was to use the wikidata template. If you don't like the new, then start a talk page. It's counterproductive to undo an edit with "old was better". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emanuel_Bronner&type=revision&diff=1086905231&oldid=1086876126&diffmode=source Acebarry (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that the previous was better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If you'd like to change it, it's up to you to propose that and justify it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Cenotaph/archive1[edit]

Hope you don't mind, but I very slightly rearranged your commentary here - just pulled File:Reverse_of_Armistice_Day_Memorial_Medal_1928.jpg onto its own line to try to disentangle it from the conversation on Immortal Shrine, and wikilinked the files to make it a little easier to check them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adam Pearce (again)[edit]

Hello. So, I wanted to discuss something with you about the Adam Pearce page... again, after the image thing. You see, in the section called "Adam Pearce#Seven Levels of Hate", I made some edits, mostly concerned with the amount of red links in the section, since some of them do have articles, just under other names (for example, a "Boston Street Fight" most likely refers to a Street Fight, which has its section on Professional wrestling match types). That long IP I mentioned in the discussion about the image (or one with similar characters) reverted those edits without mentioning an edit reason. While I considered simply creating redirects to direct to those articles and call it a day, I realized that they also reverted other edits made which to my appreciation affect the article's quality, some minor (insisting on using curved quotation marks [“…”] instead of the ones more commonly used in the English Wikipedia ["…"]), some not so minor (using flowery language/peacock words, like "the vaunted “Ten Pounds of Gold”" or "the famous Ten Pounds of Gold" [yes, with a red link again] instead of a more neutral term like "championship belt"). I was wondering if you could weight in on the issue.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdgarCabreraFariña, I see you've reverted the IP, and I'm not seeing a discussion on talk - where were you hoping I would weigh in? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was just that looking at the page's edit history, I thought that it was possible that it could be reverted by the IP again, again without adding an edit reason, but it seems to have stuck so far. Nonetheless, thanks for the answer. (P.S. I remember than when the image issue happened, I invited the IP to discuss it on the talk page, but got no answer.) --EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Avtar Singh Jouhl[edit]

Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. I was wondering whether you could take a look at this DYK nomination to see how serious the copyvio/close paraphrasing issues are at this time. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite web}} documentation[edit]

Can you please explain why you have reverted my edits here and here? You see, we have a long-standing problem that users confuse |publisher= and |website=, the problem that lasts for years. SMcCandlish tried to address this in 2018, eventually to no avail, and now I'm trying to elaborate his attempt. What do you have to the contrary? — Mike Novikoff 02:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the previous version was appropriate and consistent with the rest of the documentation. If users are not in your opinion adhering to the existing documentation, it's almost certainly because they aren't reading it to begin with; no change of wording would resolve that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it would give correct and detailed documentation to cite to them. The problem is a real one. The no. 1 correction I have to make to faulty citations is abuse of |publisher= to mean the |work= (or alias thereof like |website=, |newspaper=, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existing documentation already says not to use publisher for the name of a work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say this loud enough for anyone to hear. (Yes, some are deaf, dumb and blonde :-)) What's the problem with emphasizing the point that needs to be emphasized? What's the problem with edits that are basically no more than a copyediting? You haven't provided any reasons for your reversions besides some kind of an ownership. — Mike Novikoff 04:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition and excessive use of bold are annoying in documentation as well as in articles. It already said what you wanted to say. If people aren't reading the documentation, having it repeat the same thing but shouting louder like the stereotypical monoglot anglophone tourist isn't going to help. Kanguole 08:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may not believe it, but I've been removing extra markup and wordiness from the articles for some ten years now, all in accordance with MoS, so I know a thing or two about MOS:NOBOLD et al; I generally stand against redundancy, and in fact, this kind of gnoming is one of my favorites. (Can you believe that SMcCandlish does this regularly, too?) :-) Still, there are rare situations when even a user like me has to remember the fifth pillar, typically after the edits like this one.
Maybe my spontaneous approach to the doc wasn't perfect and should be amended, but it shouldn't be just reverted and forgotten. The doc for {{cite web}} is too wordy to read overall, even for pedants like myself who always do RTFM before even downloading a source for a binary. (Something like perl(1) which I dislike.) We definitely have to do at least a touch to this bloody |publisher=; maybe we have to start a broader discussion? SMcCandlish, what do you think? — Mike Novikoff 23:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real and long-term problem, resulting in confusing and essentially invalid citations. We need to be explicit and up-front, like first doc. sentence, about this. Publisher is for the publishing company/organization not the publication name, including a website's name. The fact that use of it is also often redundant is a very secondary matter and should not dominate the documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Will you propose the exact wording? And remember that the TemplateData part (that I don't use myself and thus have forgotten initially) is most important for newbies. — Mike Novikoff 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cenotaph[edit]

Can you check my comments on your image review? I think, if we lose Immortal Shrine - that's in US copyright until 2024 - everything else remaining in doubt is just "Crown Copyright, 50 years, applies worldwide." Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 00:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarinet photos[edit]

The old image of clarinet parts has very low resolution. The photos I added are of high resolution. Can they be included somewhere? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution on File:Parts_of_clarinet_3.jpg seems to be more than adequate and shows all the components - I don't think an additional set is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022[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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June events from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Cenotaph/archive1[edit]

I think I found evidence of the Cenotaph sketch being published under US law. Can you check my work? I think if we sort that out, we've dealt with the image review - as long as the new Agence Rol image doesn't raise any issues for you. Cheers! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sketch looks fine, thanks for finding that. Was the Agence image actually published at that time? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given offering them for reproduction is publication for US purposes, and that's the entire business model of a photo agency, do we need actual print publication? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 09:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I suppose, although we can't be sure that every image they ever produced was so offered. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 50[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

  • New library partner - SPIE
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

F1 driver infoboxes[edit]

Stop removing nationality flags from F1 driver infoboxes, they should be there, see [4]. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marbe166, nationality should not be included when can be inferred from birthplace. See WP:INFONAT and this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not apply for F1 drivers, cosensus is that the nationality should be included, and it is the nationality of their racing licence. Stop revoking an agreed consensus. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marbe166, the centralized discussion linked above determined that this applies equally to sporting biographies. This outweighs practices at specific projects per WP:LOCALCON. Now, if you'd like to propose that MOS include a carveout for F1 drivers for some reason, you're welcome to do that. But until that happens, you need to stop reinstating the parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the parameter for Lewis Hamilton that informed people he was British, despite the fact that it does not say he was born in the UK. It just says "England". Can you explain that, please? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose to do for drivers (and anyone else) born in Northern Ireland? Are they all assumed to be British? Might there not be an issue there? Not sure anyone has thought this through, as usual. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to raise that at MOS talk as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should've been raised and resolved before implementing the guideline. Obviously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you feel it hasn't been, then you can raise that as a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The various MOS refer to the personal nationality of a person, the F1 infobox refers to the racing nationality of each driver. While they often overlap, they are not the same, the racing nationality is determined by which sporting authority has provided each driver with their relevant racing license. And while a driver may carry multiple personal nationalities (like Max Verstappen or Lance Stroll) they only carry a single racing nationality. Hence why mentioning the nationality of each driver is relevant enough to be carried in the infobox. DragonFury (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFury, there is no such distinction made in INFONAT, and such a variance would be contrary to INFOBOXUSE. Again, if anyone believes there ought to be a carveout for F1, they're welcome to take that up at the MOS talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
INFONAT specifies "use of either (nationality or citizenship ed.) should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth". But the racing nationality in many cases can not be inferred from the country of birth. There are several drivers who hold personal nationalities that are different from their racing nationalities, and even different from their country of birth. DragonFury (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DragonFury, INFONAT allows nationality to be included where it cannot be inferred from country of birth, so that circumstance presents no problem. It's only where nationality and country of birth are the same that it should be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS is guideline, not a law. Stop acting like it is. Use common sense, as every guideline page requests. Moreover, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which is every bit as much representing community consensus, litterally states including a sporting nationality is acceptable.Tvx1 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that common sense would require privileging INFOBOXFLAG, which in any case does not require use of |nationality=, over other parts of MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, than that’s your personal opinion no-one agrees with. You cannot impose your personal view on Wikipedia. INFONAT deals with the personal information section of infoboxes. A sporting nationality in a career summary section is not affected by that.Tvx1 10:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might not agree, but it's not my personal view: discussion at MOS talk concluded that it does apply to sporting biographies, and there is no mention in INFONAT of differing application based on section. There's also no requirement at MOSFLAG to include this parameter, so even if you believe one MOS is somehow more important than another, this still does not support blanket inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of Caroline Kennedy from richest american politicians[edit]

Why did you remove Her, there were sources?? John-Baptist19191118 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<tps>The Daily Mail is an unreliable source, and I very much doubt "Wealthgorilla" is any better. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<Also tps> It's also doubtful Caroline Kennedy qualifies as a politician given she's never run for office. -- Vaulter 01:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John-Baptist19191118, we need reliable sources, especially for claims about living people. The sources that were provided do not qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The General consensus on the Interent is that she atleast has more than 100 million, thus qualifying for the list. Also yiu don't have to run for an office you hold just to be a politician. John-Baptist19191118 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John-Baptist19191118, you will need reliable sourcing to support that claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the INTERNET. and the net worth of her family, she very clearly has a high enough net worth, also there was 3 sources, you only mentioned TWO of them. THIS IS RIDICULOUS John-Baptist19191118 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything you find on "The Internet" meets our standard of reliability - including all three of the sites that were provided. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Bally's Chicago[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was hoping that you'd be able to take a look at this nomination to see whether the article is free from copyvio and close paraphrasing; the nominator has had troubles in those areas, so a check by someone who's good at spotting issues is really needed. Thank you for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2022[edit]



Headlines
  • Albania report: Summer of Wikivoyage 2022
  • Argentina report: Face-to-face and virtual events on May
  • Australia report: Over 1000 references added in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand for #1Lib1Ref
  • Belgium report: New Wikidata Property
  • Brazil report: Wiki Loves Espírito Santo is a sucess
  • Estonia report: From university to library
  • Finland report: Photowalks in Southern Finland, spring 2022
  • France report: International Museum Day 2022
  • India report: Digitization of Tibetan Buddhist canons, The International Museum Day 2022 Wikidata Competition
  • Italy report: May in and for museums
  • Kosovo report: Cooperation with the National Gallery of Kosova and Summer of Wikivoyage 2022
  • Malaysia report: WikiGap Malaysia 2022 @ Kuala Lumpur Library
  • New Zealand report: Pacific Arts Aotearoa Wikiproject, Auckland Museum's Exploratory Study and Report back on #1Lib1Ref
  • Poland report: Wikipedian in residence in the National Museum in Cracow; Training at the Wawel Royal Castle National Art Collection; How can we make GLAM’s digital resources more reusable in education?; The International Museum Day 2022 Wikidata Competition
  • Serbia report: New GLAM brochure and Wikilive 2022
  • Sweden report: Rembrandt and others – drawings from the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm; Stockholm Museum of Women’s History; The map book of Heinrich Thome; Sörmland Museum; Wikidata competition – International Museum Day 2022
  • Switzerland report: Diversity in GLAM Program
  • UK report: Khalili Collections
  • Uruguay report: Wikimedistas de Uruguay report: 1bib1ref, Museum of Natural History, and more!
  • USA report: Hackathons and Edit-a-thons
  • Content Partnerships Hub report: International Energy Agency share their knowledge and graphics on Wikipedia
  • Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Uploading files to Wikimedia Commons with OpenRefine: looking for test uploads!
  • WMF GLAM report: Results from 1Lib1Ref May 2022
  • Calendar: June's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

tagging an article - Bernice Vere[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

On June 8, 2022 tagged an article - Bernice Vere with

. What does this mean?

I have sourced this bio with references from: Ancestry.com; Newspapers.com; American Film Institute catalog; various Australian published media; 3 books; Library of Congress; Billboard; Variety; Motion Picture News; The Broadway Database and the Silent Era Website. I have listed 91 solid verifiable references for this article. Please advised what I have missed and what I need to do to remove this tag. Thank you Michael Jannetta (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael Jannetta, the tag links to this page that explains more about when and how primary sources should be used in Wikipedia articles. In short, using a large number of primary sources is generally a bad idea, and articles shouldn't engage in interpretation or synthesis of such sources. Records from Ancestry.com, for example, will almost always be primary sources; that doesn't mean they can't be used at all, but only carefully, within the parameters outlined at the page linked above. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosima Wagner[edit]

June songs

To not make that discussion still longer: the micropedia is a good concept, however not the topic of one article talk page. I never understood how "summarising an article" would be what an infobox should do. To my understanding, it should just collect important facts a reader may want to find at a predictable place, without having to search. In her case the Bayreuth festival, which to find in the lead would take some time. Where does a guideline say the infobox is there for a summary? - So yes, the infobox "is doing a poor job to summarize" but that's also not what the infobox should do, imho. - What can we do that in the next similar case, we just improve the efforts of an IP who has no idea of a conflict. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a broader conversation for a standalone or widespread micropedia, but implementing it for one article is not inconsistent with any guideline that I'm aware of. On the other hand, while I appreciate that's not your perspective, "summarizes" appears in the first sentence of the relevant MOS and at multiple points within. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be difficult to point me at that MoS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in case you mean WP:Infobox, I read it as "is a summary of key points", not "summarizes the subject". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reading there further: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Back to CW: we could of course have just the identibox that Brian invented (and inserted for Chopin, in 2015), but I believe a few more points are "key" such as her father, first husband and festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This rather neatly demonstrates the problem Brian identified in his essay. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can follow. How? I read: "key facts at a glance" and see them as an alternate way to information which in the prose is less predictable, and with less distinction of importance. Example: the prose never states that she directed the Bayreuth Festival after her husband's death, but hides it in a vague "devoted the rest of her life to the promotion of his music and philosophy". POB and POD - which biographies normally have at the very beginning - don't appear at all in this lead, which is fine as long as an infobox provides them. The lead is then free of such things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His argument focused on the tendency to continue expanding the templates, going beyond what could be considered essential to overly detailed. He proposed limiting the total number of parameters - and depending on how you count the Chopin example is at or over that limit, without adding any more.
If the POB and POD are key features of the subject, we could indeed have them in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it differently. If these places are key or not, doesn't matter, places and dates of birth and death belong in any bio as standard knowledge to place a person, - it looks to me as if the makers of the MoS just rely on an infobox in place, with the details of these matters, while the article is free to just mention a year instead of a full date, and just a birth town instead of also the political region and country at the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter: infobox and prose could complement each other, and why we still argue instead of simply serving both the reader of elaborated prose as the one who needs a key fact fast (which may be the same person, different day, different fact wanted), I haven't understood in all these years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It matters if you want to include them.
There are two major concerns. First, not all data is key. This is the problem Brian identified: even if you add a minimalist template, people say, oh, how could you exclude this and this and this and this, and then all of a sudden you've got overdetailed bloat which helps no one identify key facts at a glance. Second, not everything key is data - you either try to make it so and oversimplify, or ignore who she was in favour of what is easily data and end up with too many trees and not enough forest. Neither approach is good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say neither approach is good, and I say better not to be perfect than neglect one type of readers. We'll have to disagree. I wish we could ask Brian. I have to deal with terrible and happy things in real life, and this seems just so minor, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Dear Gerda, I've refrained from weighing in until now but I think your last statement is equally applicable to those on the other side of the debate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean my statement that neglecting one type of reader (sometimes called "idiots") being a minor a concern, compared to what else happens in the world? Agree, and gave up just above, didn't I? But, Ian, which "debate"? The last debate I had was beginning of 2020, and the last debate others had was Stanley Kubrick last year, and I had really hoped it was settled, with the community wanting to serve the "idiots" also. I respect Tim riley, Smerus and Nikkimaria, so would never touch an article they stand for. I would not have touched Cosima Wagner either, but an IP did. Brian called for a fresh look (in 2013), and seems misunderstood, imho, and yes, that hurts me. I am rather sure which outcome an RfC would have, but it would feel like another battle and is not what I want. I want peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

cheers! Thanks! Lectorlatinoamericano (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave[edit]

Nikkimaria, please stop reverting the Findagrave linkings. They 'are' permissble as an external link and in some cases as a viable citation in proof of the person's burial at cemetery. Please see WP:Find a Grave famous people. Koplimek (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koplimek, that page specifically notes that the site is not a reliable source and should generally be avoided as an external link. See also WP:ELPEREN. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with List of fictional towns in television[edit]

Since you reverted the edits for the List of fictional towns in television, what can I use as a reliable source, I thought using the Fandom Wiki's and IMDB could be enough because all the Nickelodeon and studio-owned primary source websites that used to be related to the two TV shows have been deleted now. Unless I can find an entertainment website's news article about the two shows, I don't think I can find anything else. IntellectualChristianWikiUser (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at reviews of the show or other secondary sources - unfortunately sometimes it does happen that there simply isn't the reliable sourcing needed to include a claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Michael Tyler[edit]

As per ELPEREN as you've been citing "As an external link: Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images of a grave". The external link is corroborating that he is interred at a specific cemetery, so I fail to see why it's being removed. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only source making that claim, it shouldn't be included - this doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has specific GPS details but regardless that isn't the point, your cited rationale for removing it from the external links doesn't work because the reason it is there fits within the caveat stated in ELPEREN.
That caveat doesn't make the site reliable for corroboration of factual claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in July 2022[edit]

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Taylor Lorenz[edit]

Please read the article's talk page before reverting: this source is specifically addressed as an exception to the deprecated sources rule: it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but because it contains an image of the deleted tweet referenced in the text. If you disagree, please let me know your reasons. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicosa77 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicosa77, are you talking about the "For anyone who saw my post" tweet? If so, that is not uniquely available via that source - there are other options to cite. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the note on the talk page Nicosa77 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Avica1998, is that the tweet being referenced? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
? Avica1998 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Avica1998, is the tweet "For anyone who saw my post" the reason to include that citation? If so, can we replace it with another source that includes that tweet? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Give me some time to read up on this thread and I'll respond. Avica1998 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you deleted a cite from the Daily Mail regarding a tweet that began "For anyone that saw my post..." that was included because it contained an image of the tweet, not for the story itself. The tweet was deleted from Twitter and there does not seem to be an image of the tweet anywhere else. I'd be happy to swap out the cite for a new one if the new one contains an image of the deleted tweet, but as is the cite verifies the quote used in the note. Avica1998 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Avica1998, the same tweet is available here among others. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in the case I will replace it with the one you provided. thanks Avica1998 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces[edit]

Hello, why is it with Manitoba (only), you keep going against me? GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I've brought the other provinces in sync with your personal preference. Giving you full credit in the edit summaries, of course. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, your pointy edits and personalization are not helpful. If you think 'your' version is better, make your case for that on its merits. Why do you feel that particular model should be standard? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it was better. Just that it was in most of the provinces, already. I just couldn't understand why you didn't delete the parameters from them all. Why did you only delete at Manitoba. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing that model required changing half the provinces - if you don't have reason to believe it's better, then there's no reason to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained why it's always 'only' Manitoba, that you make such deletions or reverts. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Manitoba is a featured article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider putting all 10 provinces on your watchlist. That will cut down the chances of one province being out of sync with the other nine. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's quite fine for there to be differences, especially when you cannot justify a particular approach as being better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. But I suppose, you only care about Manitoba. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop being stubborn & allow all the provinces infoboxes to be consistent. Take your concerns to the RFC at WP:CANADA, PLEASE. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, the point of an RfC is to try to obtain consensus to support a change, not to make the change first and then get consensus. Please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the RFC, please & make your argument 'there'. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I will be happy to do so once you undo your out-of-process change. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure trying to reason with you. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If only you were reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan commas[edit]

I have to question this edit. It feels wrong to change the article over to your preference for commas for 4 digits, when others were just trying to make it consistent. Additionally you didn't make a reasonable edit summary to explain to other editors why you think this is the way the article should be. You've been around along time, you know how important edit summaries are especially in instances like this. So can I ask why you think it's better to convert the entire article over to not having comma separators in 4 digit numbers rather than conforming that one instance? Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canterbury Tail, apart from the inconsistency that had crept into the Geography section (which I hadn't noticed so thank you for pointing it out), the article consistently used and had used no commas. Thus changing the lead did not bring about consistency, and changing Geography was the better approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late Registration FAC[edit]

Now that this article is at a second FA candidacy, I thought I'd let you know that I have worked on the images and revised other things too if you care to leave any comments. K. Peake 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Cameron's Avatar (pinball)[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you explain in which policy you're based to blank the page and redirect to Stern (game company) without even notifying me? As I know, the policies about deletion and notability, the right way to handle this kind of articles is moving to Draft: namespace, proposing or nominating for deletion, but not blanking-then-redirecting, specially without prior notification. So, please, don't revert it again. I'll ask the Administrators if this procedure is right. Thanks. Amitie 10g (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amitie 10g, blanking and redirecting is a common and accepted alternative to deletion. If you disagree we can certainly pursue a more formal discussion, but the article currently does not have the necessary reliable secondary and independent sourcing to stand alone. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a common procedure, but I don't know which policy/convention regulares that. Could you indicate which text explain that procedure.
The real problem is not the blank-then-redirect itself, but not contacting the user in their talk page (as I believe should be required), indicating which issues has the article, "lack of reliable sources", which I disagree. Also, blanking-then-redirecting leads two problems, disallow the editor(s) to improve the article, and discourage the users to improve Wikipedia in general. As I disagree the deletionism in general (wich I claimed several times at the Spanish Wikipedia), I believe the Village Pump would be a better place to discuss that. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amitie 10g, I linked above to WP:BLAR which is the relevant guideline. You'd be welcome to propose adding a requirement to that page that the creating user be contacted directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I already read the WP:BLAR, and yes, is an accepted procedure, but I still disagree with your application of the deletion process. As the Deletion policy says, the reversal of blank-and-redirecting should not be reverted again, otherwise, I'll consider them as edit warring and POINT (specially for not contacting me previously nor taking any productive action). The article has been already reviewed by Ozzie10aaaa, so, your need to contact they too, beforter taking any further action. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amitie 10g, I appreciate you feel that contacting should be necessary, and again you're welcome to propose it - but at the moment that's not a requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones peer review opened[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, I greatly appreciated your FAC image review of Mick Jagger. I hope to run The Rolling Stones through the gauntlet next, following another GOCE edit (just filed the request). I was wondering if I could get some input on the article early from you to help make FAC a bit easier? If so, I have started a peer review page for comments. If you are unable to comment, that is totally fine. Thank you for your time & help with the Mick Jagger article! TheSandDoctor Talk 16:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo Mary Celeste[edit]

I see you have reverted my edit about the alcohol. Please read the talk page about the nature of the cargo; there is no evidence it was denatured alcohol which was not produced in the US until 1906. The source I gave was Charles Fay who unlike Hicks cites references and the outturn if the cargo in Italy.

In 1897, a joint committee of Congress, investigating the importance of ethyl alcohol, reported its uses in industry as both "legitimate and necessary." This was the first of a series of reports and deliberations that led to the enactment of the Tax-free Industrial and Denatured Alcohol Act of 1906.

The Mary Celeste was shipping alcohol in 1872

I leave it to you to sort this error out, probably more tidily than me. Dave 3142 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what comes of the talk page discussion regarding a footnote or other option for clarifying the situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted photo[edit]

Hi,

Firstly thank you for some editions on the page. Regarding to the deleted photo, this text has been sent by Gh. F. himself to his friends by using his personal Instagram account. The thing is that the text is sent personally and not published on his page. I can ask her daughter for getting her permission for publishing the text. She also has gotten this text from him. I would be happy of you would guide me in that way.

best, Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uzeyir Kemal, you'll find instructions for how to submit evidence of permission on your talk page on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer.
I have read the instructions. I would like to understand that, for instance, when someone sent me a text before his/her dead, can I publish it with getting a screenshot from my own account and writing a permission for publishing? Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uzeyir Kemal, no, you cannot. You are not the author of the text and therefore do not have the right to release it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The thing is that it is not a personal message. It is an announcement for public which sent to people around him. It is a public message, not personal. Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that doesn't change the answer: you didn't write it so you cannot release it under a Wikipedia-compatible license. Simply being public doesn't make something free. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, I can use the text as Quote. Because he had talked more detailed about his text with his around people. Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, without publishing the picture. Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean you want to use something you heard him say, you're going to have trouble citing that - Wikipedia defines reliable sources as ones which have been published. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hmm.. This information is important. I have to find a way for giving this info. I have to check that if he published this text in any other social media or etc. or maybe use it as quote from his families or close friends. However, thank you for infos. Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of your changes at Nick Solak[edit]

I have reverted your addition of “US” at the Nick Solak page. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NotReallySoroka, what is your rationale for that revert? See discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Few baseball articles use “US” in the infobox. Moreover, your link discussion is only your own comment, when the conclusion did not mention the pertinent issue (“US” in infoboxes). NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NotReallySoroka, it's not only my own comment - there are several users who agree on the appropriate format. See also WP:OTHERCONTENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Solak, so I fail to see why WP:OTHERCONTENT matters. Conversely, don’t you think it is good to have a unified format for related article? NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NotReallySoroka, I don't see a reason to vary between types of biographies, and I'm also not sure what deletion has to do with the link I provided - perhaps you're thinking of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have retracted the pertinent part of my statement. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Please also revert your revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your revert. Although you had linked to our discussion here, you have misrepresented my words; I never explicitly retracted everything, only the "I am not… matters" part. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NotReallySoroka, do you have a rationale for your revert other than OTHERCONTENT? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be the best if we were to move this conversation to Talk:Nick Solak and request a third opinion on this issue. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By all means post your rationale there and we can discuss further. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

The Puerto Rico National Merit Medal
Thank you for your work on Frank H. Wadsworth.--evrik (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Boelcke FA nom[edit]

Hello,

I have addressed most of your concerns with the images in this article. However, a couple of issues still need to be addressed by you, sorry to say. No need to ping me; I scan my watchlist daily.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#‎User:Neplota Moxy- 17:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2022[edit]



Headlines
  • Albania report: CEE Spring 2022 in Albania and Kosovo
  • Argentina report: In the middle of new projects
  • Australia report: A celebration, a commitment, an edit-a-thon: Know My Name returns for 2022
  • Belgium report: Heritage and Wikimedian in Residence
  • Brazil report: FIRST WikiCon Brazil & Three States of GLAM
  • Croatia report: Network(ing) effect(s)
  • France report: French open content report promotion
  • Italy report: Opening and closing projects in June
  • Kosovo report: Edit-a-thon with Kino Lumbardhi; DokuTech; CEE Spring 2022 in Albania and Kosovo
  • New Zealand report: West Coast Wikipedian at Large and Auckland Museum updates
  • Poland report: Wikipedian in residence in the National Museum in Cracow; The next online meeting within the cycle of monthly editing GLAM meetings; Steps to communicate GLAM partnerships better and involve the Wikimedian community
  • Sweden report: 100 000 memories from the Nordic Museum; Report from the Swedish National Archives
  • Switzerland report: Diversity in GLAM Program
  • UK report: Featured images and cultural diversity
  • USA report: Fifty Women Sculptors; Juneteenth Edit-a-thon; Juneteenth Photobooths 2022; Wiknic June 2022; New York Botanical Garden June 2022; LGBT Pride Month
  • Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Structured data on Commons editing now possible with OpenRefine 3.6; file uploading with 3.7
  • Calendar: July's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Reliable sources[edit]

Figureskatingfan is working on Edith of Wilton and has nominated the article at GAN. I think that two of the sources she is using are not reliable and have raised it with her at Talk:Edith of Wilton#Sources, but we do not agree. I think it would be helpful to get the views of other editors, but I am not sure what is the best place to raise the issue. Can you advise please. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley Miles, if you're looking for a wider set of perspectives you could try posting to the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB Link[edit]

Hello, You have recently deleted Ali Etesamifar's IMDb profile.e IMDb is a great source and people who work at cinema/movie industry often use it as a reference. This artist lives in an none-English speaking country and the website is one of the afew references to read in English for international readers. I would be grateful if you give me an explanation. I sure will learn how to improve my experience of editing articles with your help...

Many Thanks in advance, Jazzyman90 (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jazzyman90, IMDb unfortunately isn't considered a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This page has some more information with links to discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Jazzyman90 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS's are sometimes tricky[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to say I am extremely new to the editing side of Wikipedia. I completely did not understand what reliable sources were versus using any website as a source. When I undid your revert, I did not know you could see the notes or explanations for an undo, so I neglected to read that the website citation used was not classified as a reliable source. Sorry to have caused so much trouble and, if I'm even putting this message in the right place, I genuinely hope you can help more new members much like myself. Thanks again! Captainzelda076 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the right place, and you're welcome. If you have any questions about sourcing let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tarring and feathering in popular culture for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tarring and feathering in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarring and feathering in popular culture (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Boulez[edit]

Hello, I hope you're well, Tim riley suggested I contact you. I'm the main author of the article on the composer Pierre Boulez. In 2016 the Cleveland Orchestra Archive sent me two images of Boulez with permission to use them, provided I credited the archive and the photographer. They are now the subject of challenge on the image discussion page. It seems counter-intuitive to me that they can't be used, but I'm no expert. Tim tells me you're very well-versed in such matters. If you happen to have a few minutes would you mind having a look at the discussion and giving me a view as to whether the proposed deletion is right / whether there's a solution to the problem. I'd be very grateful. Dmass (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmass, I'm happy to take a look - do you have a link to where the discussion is taking place? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! It's at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_July_14#File:Pierre_Boulez_conducting_at_Blossom_Music_Center_in_1969._Photo_by_Peter_Hastings._Courtesy_of_The_Cleveland_Orchestra_Archives.tif Dmass (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dmass, what exactly did the email you received say? Was it permission only for inclusion in this article, or did they release the image under a free license? If it's the latter this could be sorted out by forwarding that email to VRT. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It said:
Dear David,
Thank you for your inquiry and for contacting the Archives of The Cleveland Orchestra. I've attached a photo of Boulez conducting at Blossom Music Center in 1969.
The photo credit line should read: Photo by Peter Hastings. Courtesy of The Cleveland Orchestra Archives.
Unfortunately, I don't have many decent photos where he is conducting with the Orchestra in view. Please let me know if you need anything else and good luck with your project!
Sincerely,
Andria Hoy Dmass (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Do you think it's likely they would be willing to release it under a free license? A CC BY or similar license would ensure their attribution remains intact. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for looking at this. I’m afraid I don’t know what a CC BY license is (I’m a lawyer, but not a copyright lawyer, sadly!). They were very helpful, but there may be limits on their generosity. Do you have a sense of what an organisation such as that might be comfortable with? Dmass (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creative_Commons_license#Six_regularly_used_licenses. It really depends on the organization - some will be willing to do that, others will not. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Do you think that’s the only route? Dmass (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only route, but if they're willing to go along with it definitely the easiest. WP:COPYREQ may be helpful if you decide to go that way. There are two other options:
  • Demonstrate that the images are in the public domain. That would require tracking down the earliest publication and crossing your fingers that it meets the criteria set out in the Hirtle chart for copyright expiration.
  • Demonstrate that the images are justified under fair use. This will be challenging because a number of free images exist of Boulez, so you would need to show that these provide significant value to the reader that is not afforded by those alternatives. And you'd have an uphill battle because so far the FFD participants other than yourself oppose this perspective. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I really appreciate your guidance and your time. Hope to meet again! Dmass (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you[edit]

...in this discussion. No need to respond there if you're not interested, just didn't want to bring up your name without letting you know!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French question[edit]

Hello. You seem like the most knowledgeable person to ask. What would you say is the likely copyright status of a 1978 image taken in Afghanistan by an archaeologist of a research institute of the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs? Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, has this image been published, and if so where and when? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power[edit]

I have noted an ongoing edit war among three primary people on The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. I am leaving the same final warning message for all three of you. All three of you have previously been blocked for edit warring in the past. Yet, the lesson does not seem to have been learned. Edit warring is not a means to an end. It's counterproductive and disruptive. This behavior is entirely unacceptable. It will stop. If you are not able to stop your edit warring, you will find yourself the recipient of a considerably longer block. It's your choice. You can either comply with our Wikipedia:Edit warring policy and continue editing, or not comply and not be able to edit. Your choice. By all means continue the discussion at Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power#Removal_of_Non-reliable_sourcing, and attempt to come to a consensus. If you can't come to a consensus, the appropriate response is NOT to edit war in a vain attempt to brute force your preferred version of the article into existence. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow it. You will note that policy does NOT suggest edit warring. This ends. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the conflict at the time of my initial edit and have no intention of reverting more than once. However, I think you may have missed that there seem to be two separate edit-wars going on, and therefore more than three editors involved. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already have committed two reverts in one day at that article [5][6]. The warning stands. You can either stop the behavior or be blocked. Your choice. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I have no intention of reverting more than once. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already did. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to be going in circles. Rather than repeating what I've already said, I will simply note that I am disengaging from that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022[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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2022[edit]

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Chester[edit]

I noticed your removal of the link to Find a Grave on this article, with "linkvio" in the edit summary. I did this link a long time ago – Was it done incorrectly? There is a template for Find a Grave.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ira Leviton, in technical terms your link was set up correctly. I removed it because of a concern about linkvio - the link contains material that appears to violate copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_43&oldid=1117698918"