Books & Bytes – Issue 64

edit

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

  • The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Wikimania presentation
  • New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request for opinion

edit

As someone knowledgeable in MOS:LINKING, you are invited to share your perspective on Talk:A. K. Fazlul Huq#Messing up the infobox and Talk:Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy#Linking. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Small request

edit

Hello, I need to delete my old username which is redirecting to my page? Can you help me with this deletion? If not, who should I talk to? Thanks in advance. Benzekre (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this has gotten sorted? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Another admin help me out. Thanks anyway! Benzekre (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

edit
 
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) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matt Bevin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Italy#Biased against Italy

edit

Hi, I didn't read the whole article. I would like to ask you: do you think what this user wrote is true or not? Almost everything seems fine to me. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the article is mostly appropriately balanced. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I hope the article isn't even a little biased against Italy, it wouldn't be fair at all. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

edit

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete Kellogg?

edit

no need to just redirect it as he is such a popular character and has an entire character arc and should not be reduced to a simple page with no text and a simple redirect. Please answer me as to why you did this WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi WikipedianAncientHistorian, the article's only reference was to an open wiki, which is not considered a reliable source. It also does not appear that the character has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is what is generally needed to have a standalone article. 20:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

FAC Mentoring

edit

I talked to Gerda Arendt on having my article I'm working on (Sarah Geronimo) for FAC months ago, and she said that she is currently busy with other things. Which is why I'm finding a second mentor for FAC. Do you mind checking the article and my sandbox for any feedback, updates, and improvements? Thank you. ScarletViolet tc 12:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi ScarletViolet, pop music isn't really my area of interest, but I can give some general feedback. Could you clarify your plan regarding the sandbox? Will it replace the current article, or are you going to try to merge the two? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nikkimaria: Sorry for the late reply. The content of my sandbox will replace the current article once its complete. Currently, I believe it's 85-90% complete. ScarletViolet tc 12:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A kitten for you!

edit
 

For kind assistance at DYK

CMD (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question

edit

what is FAC, FAR, & DYK ? ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(watching) when you see any abbreviation on Wikipedia, try to find out if it is a shortcut link to something: WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

edit

Working paper numbers

edit

@Chipmunkdavis: - @CambridgeBayWeather: Not sure what is best to do here. We have some great infomation from User:John Cummings about forest being added all over...however they are using a working paper not peer reviewed or published in an academic journal or offical yet. In the cases of Canada we have "real" numbers. Though the numbers are close to Canada offical numbers they are a bit off. I plan to fix the Canada numbers..but what about the rest?

Working paper = https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a6e225da-4a31-4e06-818d-ca3aeadfd635/content

The Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper Series is designed to reflect the activities and progress of the FRA Programme of FAO. Working Papers are not authoritative information sources – they do not reflect the official position of FAO and should not be used for official purposes. Please refer to the FAO forestry website (www.fao.org/forestry) for access to official information. The Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper Series provides an important forum for the rapid release of information related to the FRA programme. Should users find any errors in the documents or would like to provide comments for improving their quality they should contact fra@fao.org

Offical numbers = https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/forest/sof2023/NRCAN_SofForest_Annual_2023_EN_accessible-vf(1).pdf - Moxy🍁 12:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Moxy I'm out of town until Sunday, and I forgot my laptop. I'll take a look on Monday. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I saw this pop up on Botswana but haven't taken a closer look yet. As an initial comment, these pushing the same edit over hundreds of articles type missions don't usually lead to great improvement. I'm not opposed to an FAO working paper in principle, but I would not use it over the Canada document you link. CMD (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Moxy:, just to correct a missunderstanding, to clarify:
  • The numbers do not come from the working paper, the working paper is to provide a reference for the terms used in the text.
  • The numbers come from the main UN Food and Agriculture Organization Global Forest Resources Assessment, the data for Canada is taken from this page. The data for the FRA is collated from each government, so there will also be a Canadian government source which also includes these statistics (perhaps the one you reference). The data collated by the UN is published every 5 years since 1948 so its possible that the source you site is more up to date.
I hope that helps
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It's not a bad source, but like all UN data it should be treated with care. An odd case, for some reason Italy submits a different official English name to the UN than it uses on its constitution's official English translation. CMD (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think regardless of sourcing, the level of detail being added is excessive for a top-level country page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Singapore ethniticities

edit

Regarding the cleanup at Singapore, while ethnicity can sometimes be hard to put figures on, in Singapore it's a strictly regulated system where each person is legally assigned to a race. It would likely be a better reflection of the country for the reader to include that in the infobox instead of citizen vs resident. CMD (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No objections to swapping from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chicken gun is a game

edit

Shame on you for deleting my edit 36.65.196.37 (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi IP, if there is sourcing to demonstrate the game is notable, then there can be an article about it and a hatnote that points to that article. But external links don't belong in hatnotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red October 2024

edit
 
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

  Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Subordinate clauses

edit

You should pull out a book on English grammar and review punctuation with respect to subordinate clauses. Your undoing of my edits to Stanley Kubrick show that you are deficient in this area. — Foxtrot1296 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Newspapers.com renewal error

edit

Hi there,

I requested a renewal for complimentary access to Newspapers.com on September 27. However, I cannot access the full archive. When I clicked on "Account Details," it reads under the Subscription info, "You're currently a Registered Guest. This free subscription gets you access to search newspapers but you will not be able to view the full page. Get a paid subscription for access." Birdienest81talk 08:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Birdienest81, your account has to be activated by Newspapers.com before it will have full access - suggest trying again in a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hallowell

edit

Why did you scratch the pop-cultural ref to The Frozen River? You just asked for relevance; how-ever, it is common in Wikipedia articles to include songs and books that focus on the given community. This particular book about Martha Ballard, midwife in the village in the 18th century takes place almost exclusively in the community and gives a picture of its character. Kdammers (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kdammers, per this RfC such entries require secondary sourcing indicating their significance to the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!

edit
  The Original Barnstar
To Nikkimaria on the occasion of your closing the Minneapolis FAR as kept. A thousand thanks for more than a year's coordination. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Congrats to you on the fine work on that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reference bundling

edit

I assume you seen my reference bundling at Canada. Was thinking of doing this for other FA country articles... because in my view it makes things so much more legible.... what do you think Japan Germany Australia? Help:Citation merging. Moxy🍁 23:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Moxy, I find bundling useful when there's a reason to do it, like adding annotation, but I'm not generally a fan for just combining citations - in my view having multiple clickable numbers is no different from a usability perspective from having multiple citations within one clickable number (plus it makes it harder to repeat a single ref). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bithia Mary Croker

edit

You reversed my correction of her birthplace. It is written on her gravestone, which can be seen on findagrave. Is this not reliable enough? RabbitFromMars (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oxford DNB also writes "Croker [née Sheppard], Bithia Mary (1847–1920), novelist, was born in Warrenpoint, co. Down, on 28 May 1847" (it's paywalled, but this part shows up with a Google search), so I will add Warrenpoint again. RabbitFromMars (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perfect, I've added that ref, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: September 2024

edit
 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Parsec

edit

Unless there's a real reason as to why my popular culture addition about the Terminator and Parscs shouldn't be added, don't remove it. What reason would there be? It's popular culture and I cited the references. Metaphysical typist (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec#In_popular_culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphysical typist (talkcontribs) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metaphysical typist, this type of content needs reliable, secondary sourcing that indicates its significance in order to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Really?! The pop culture tidbit above mine using citation #23 has an invalid link! I went above and beyond to cite my sources. Metaphysical typist (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, really - if other entries are inappropriately sourced those should be addressed rather than more added. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peer Review Request

edit

Hello Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you could give this article a peer review? I saw you on the peer review volunteer page and wanted to ask someone for one. The article is Adi Meyerson and here's the peer review page. She's a jazz bassist in New York City who has released two albums so far. I came across this article a week ago and have been improving it as much as I can. I'm not a very experienced editor and I'm sure I'm missing a lot in this article. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, Surfinsi (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

rimsky korsakov

edit

hi hi, seen you’ve taken down my rimsky-korsakov infobox, i checked the note and the annexed wiki project, and decided to still add the infobox as the talk page for him isn’t active, how shall i proceed with it? Antniomanso (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The talk page is now active so let's continue this conversation there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Luís Afonso for deletion

edit
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luís Afonso 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/Luís Afonso 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.

Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

William D. Hoard portrait

edit

Hi Nikkimaria, I was looking at your comments on the William D. Hoard portrait and I am having a heck of a time fixing the link. The Wisconsin Historical Society doesn't allow direct linking to specific portraits from what I can tell, and this particular version of this image doesn't appear to exist in their archives anymore. Going to the WHS portrait search, searching for William D. Hoard, and downloading their image collection (clicking print on the left side, selecting images) provides a PDF with various images in it of the oil painting, including what appears to be a restored/more color-accurate version on the last page. These images should be public domain, but it's not clear to me if the digital recreations are also public domain, nor if the WHS Terms of Use actually applies in this case or if it only applies to purchased images. I'd be curious for your thoughts and any suggestions you might have. Thanks for looking! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi M4V3R1CK32, iff the original image is PD, I don't think there have been significant enough changes that the new version would be anything other than PD. But what leads you to believe the original is PD? I don't see anything in the WHS portrait record on copyright status, despite what the ToU says. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The portrait was painted in 1891, so it should be PD by virtue of being published prior to 1929 according to Commons if I am understanding everything correctly. Near the bottom of the portrait entry it says "This portrait was painted in 1891 by James Reeve Stuart (1834-1915)". M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi M4V3R1CK32, publication has a very specific definition in US copyright law, and simply being created or even displayed prior to 1929 does not guarantee that it meets that definition. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Learn something new every day! The portrait entry says this in the second to last paragraph:
This portrait of William Hoard was donated to the State Historical Society of Wisconsin by Governor James O. Davidson. It was noted thusly, "Oil portrait, framed, of Gov. W.D. Hoard, formerly hung in the Executive Chamber, Capitol. Painted by J.R. Stuart, September, 1891." (Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin...1907, 1908, p. 92.)
So if I'm reading things correctly I think that would satisfy the requirement in section 1902 by transfer of ownership to be considered published, and it would still be PD by this definition of publication in 1907-1908:
Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines publication as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
Does that make sense to you? I am very much a novice with this kind of thing and want to make sure I'm doing things right. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi M4V3R1CK32, 1902 references distribution to the public - I don't think what's being described here would qualify. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if the state historical society being a government agency would impact that at all? In any case, I think the provision for unpublished works or works for hire would apply for it be PD.
Commons says for unpublished works, if there is a "Known author with a known date of death [copyright lasts] 70 years after the death of author." James Reeve Stuart died in 1915, so it has been more than 70 years since his death and the portrait should be PD under that provision.
If the portrait was work for hire (which seems likely) the copyright term has also expired. Works for hire had their copyright expire 120 years after creation, so anything created prior to 1904 is PD according to the chart I linked on Commons (also available on the Copyright rules by territory page). The portrait was made in 1891, so it has been PD for at least 13 years if it was work for hire and I'm reading things correctly. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it was never published before 2003, PD-US-unpublished would be the way to go. Is that known to be the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it may be old enough where even if it had been officially published at some point in the last 100 years, it wouldn't make a difference. The Commons Copyright rules by territory page says the copyright expires when "the earlier of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation" comes to pass -- it could be officially published tomorrow under the definition of publication in chapter 1900 but 120 years would still have passed since its creation, so it should still be PD I would think. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It might make a difference, depending on if/when it was published. If never before 2003 or definitely before 1929, it's PD. But if it was published at some point after 1929 but before 2003, maybe not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's an interesting interpretation, one that could cause problems for a lot of portraits on Commons now.
When it comes to publication, the "[offer to] distribute copies... for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." We know that the portrait hung in the "executive chamber" (either the governor's office or governor's conference room), both which are a gray area as far "public" areas go. Does that constitute being published under the rule of intent to distribute for public display?
It was also given to a government agency (the historical society) in 1907 or 1908. That agency is charged with the "preservation and care of all records, both printed and written, and all articles and other materials of historic interest and significance placed in its custody"[1] as well as charged with cataloging those materials "for the more convenient reference of all persons who have occasion to consult the collections", including the ability to loan out materials [2], which sounds an awful lot to me like it was offered to be distributed for public display, constituting publication ~116 years ago, which would make it PD.
I don't know! It's a weird question. Appreciate you sticking with me this long and considering everything on this topic. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The original display of the work would fall under "public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication" per 1902. As to the historical society, unless there is an agency-specific exception that I'm not aware of, unpublished materials available in an archival capacity are still considered unpublished. See for example this statement from the Society of American Archivists]. (As they and you note, this creates lots of problems, especially when the provenance of a work is less clear.)
So in terms of moving forward for this image, I'd suggest doing some searching to see what's the earliest confirmed publication of the portrait you can identify. Once we've figured out what that is, the next steps will be much clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi there! Thought I'd circle back to this discussion. I've done all the digging I know how to do, including searching copyright registrations back to 1923, and have seen no instance of the portrait being registered for copyright nor evidence of a formal publication. I took the discussion to the copyright village pump on Commons and editors there believe the portrait to be in the public domain, so I think we should be good. Thanks for all the discussion here! This was a great conversation. Cheers M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Murder of"

edit

Over the years I have seen you delete infoboxes within Wikipedia articles. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not. Is this a thing on Wikipedia that there should only be one infobox per page? I agree that having 5 would be excessive, but for a "Murder of" article for example, if there is only one perpetrator involved I fail to see why there is a need to remove an infobox for the perpetrator if one already exists for the victim, especially if the article is already reasonably long. I can't see in Wikipedia policy where this a thing to only have 1 infobox per page. Inexpiable (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)\Reply

Hi Inexpiable, these templates are to "summarize[] key facts about the page's subject", which in the case of these articles is not the perpetrator but rather the event. As per WP:1E, for people who are notable for only one event, we should avoid the creation of pseudobiographies. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

East Germany and Polish People's Republic

edit

Hi Nikkimaria, I see that you keep deleting descriptions in make for governments of Eastern block countries. I personally don't think that the overly short description of "socialist republic" works for either of these two countries. Considering that the type of socialist country they were were Marxist-Leninist in nature, I think it would be more accurate and informative to describe them as what they were, Marxist-Leninist one party socialist republics. There are many other pages of Marxist-Leninist states where they're government description is the same as I had put for East Germany so I don't see why it shouldn't also have its description as such. As for the Polish People's Republic, I think that the inclusion that it was under a stalinist dictatorship from 1947-1956 and the detail about the country being under a military junta are good details as they show how the form of government changed. I think the way you oversimplify the descriptions is reductive and degrades the quality of the articles. WildRaptor777 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the shorter version both identifies the government type and does so at a glance, but you'd be welcome to take your proposal to the articles' talk pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree, but thanks for being reasonable and respectful WildRaptor777 (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’ll make sure to take my proposal to the talk page WildRaptor777 (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

edit

Steve Waterbury

edit

Why did you remove his Find a grave?Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Johnny Spasm, see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Find a Grave - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's the dumbest thing ever. Why would Wikipedia have a templet for a source they don't trust?Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Haydn discussion

edit

Hello, I wanted to inform you that I added my vote to the infobox discussion for Joseph Haydn and as there appeared to be no consensus (5 votes for, 3 against), I removed the infobox pending further votes as I do not think as it stands there is clear consensus. I also object to how the infobox remained static for months until a new vote after months of no discussion was used to add the infobox. I do not think that adding it at this time is warranted. Barbarbarty (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Source removal

edit

Hi, I just wanted to explain a little bit more in-depth my reversion of your removal of the sources in Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain). Per Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/FAQ, grave markers are valid sources under {{cite sign}}. My understanding is that FindAGrave is not allowed for its user-generated, non-reliable content on obituaries, etc; the URLs in the sources simply give the non-free photos of graves being cited. Seeing as the citations would be valid and reliable without the link, I didn't think that adding the link as an additional piece of information with the grave photos would be an issue. If it is, please remove the links but leave the grave citations themselves. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Darth Stabro, what do you see as the benefit of doing that? Even if they belong to the people mentioned in the article, the graves don't support the claims being made about them. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The name of his father and the full name (Johanna) of his mother are not found in any other sources at the moment. The Current Biography Yearbook 1955 source is currently offline until the Internet Archive figures its stuff out and the article is currently being reviewed for Good Article, and the reviewer asked for a source for the names other than that source. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
But this source doesn't give you that. Primary sources can be used only for they themselves say, without analysis or synthesis. You can prove that stones with those names exist, but not that they are the parents whose full names you don't have. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rollback on Josefina Echánove

edit

@Nikkimaria, I understand why you did it because I 99% of the time would have done the same. I get that it looks immensely weird to be changing the birth and death place on a dead person, Josefina Echánove. If you will have read the inline source from the LA times, the memorial that I added from ancestry thru the wiki resources. At some point, someone entered her place of birth and dying in Guanajuato. It's so bad because the Wikidata statement literally says it but cites a source that says the correct birth place of New york, I am at this moment updating the wikidata statements so I won't need to change the info in 7 different languages.

I thought my summaries would be enough to cause a second glance, obviously I was mistaken. Can you please self revert your rollback? RCSCott91 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI: the change was done by IP user 201.168.135.200 03:55, 14 October 2024. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you RCSCott91 (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red November 2024

edit
 
Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

  Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

edit
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Newspapers.com account struggling to reboot after approval

edit

Howdy Nikkimaria. Ain't the first time I've had to reach out to you about problems with my Newspapers.com account. You reapproved my registration, but the account still says Registered Guest rather than member. Just need a quick refreshers. I've logged out and in multiple times. Just wondering what the update is. Mitch32(it's you I like.) 01:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mitchazenia, after approval the account has to be processed by Newspapers.com, which takes a bit of time - suggest checking back in a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Indigenous peoples in Canada

edit

Indigenous peoples in Canada has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Moxy🍁 01:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit

I reverted it and then was going to edit it again to add more reliable sources, but you reverted it before I could add new sources. Then an "edit war" pop-up appeared. Idk, just saying. Deerare2good (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What sources did you want to add? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
​​Everything You Need To Know About Silverfish
​​​Mob Menagerie: Silverfish | Minecraft
Please let me know if you approve of these sources. None of these are wikis to my knowledge. Deerare2good (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
They're definitely better, but this type of content needs sourcing that demonstrates the subject's cultural impact, rather than just its use - see MOS:IPC. I don't think these quite get there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

edit

Guy Fawkes Night

edit

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits. I use ISBN-10 for books published before 1 January 2007 and ISBN-13 for books published after 1 January 2007. I don't think this is wrong. Also, you reverted "LLC" deletion, but {{cite book}} states: Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc.", or "GmbH" are not usually included.-- Carnby (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you believe switching to ISBN-10 is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because ISBN-10 was standard until 1 January 2007 and ISBN-13 after 1 January 2007.-- Carnby (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
But when there is an ISBN-13 which is assigned to a work, what do you feel the benefit is of changing it to an ISBN-10? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: October 2024

edit
 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Newspapers.com

edit

Thanks for accepting my application! However, when I try to access Newspapers.com, I still receive the usual info I would if I used a free account. Is there a reason why? Tavantius (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tavantius, it has to be processed by Newspapers.com - check again in a couple of weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

edit

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wagner Infobox

edit

Hello, I see you reverted my infobox edits on Richard Wagner.

I have reviewed the talk page and found a discussion on whether or not to include a infobox, but not on the content of the infobox.

I have added such a discussion to get things going: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Wagner#Infobox_improvements

Regards, Wonder29 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Query

edit

Greetings @Nikkimaria. I just wanted you to tell me whether the following image is properly licensed or not.

 

Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi MSincccc, it appears so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

edit

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

edit

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

edit

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Newspapers.com

edit

Hi, Nikkimaria! It's been a while since we visited. I've been busy growing old. *lol*. I was hoping my access to newspapers.com would have been granted by now–it's been a few weeks–so if it has, I have not received anything confirming it. I'm thinking my only resources about Don Decker (90+ yrs old) will be in news sources, so please advise. As ever...Atsme 💬 📧 21:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atsme, if you log into your account, are you able to access full text? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure to what you're referring. Is that a new feature? I don't have any issues at TWL relative to accessing my saved pages at TWL. This page is what inspired my question. Atsme 💬 📧 12:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I signed in at their site with my WP account, and all is good. For some reason, I thought we had to use a different sign-in. Forgive my dorkness. All is well. Atsme 💬 📧 15:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Artwork in biographies

edit

Hey, Nikkimaria. There's a new editor, HejRonja, continuing the cartoon additions of Maitesob that you've been cleaning up after. I've indeffed HejRonja, as the name itself is promotional (compare this edit), and inquired about socking on Maitesob's page. I have a notion that account has probably been abandoned, though. Please let me know if you should come across any more apparent socks that need blocking. Bishonen | tålk 20:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

Will do, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RV of new category

edit

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted my edits adding some pages to Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (related guidelines) and that you modified Template:Manual of Style. This was my goal - using WP:BRD to test the waters for consensus, because I had no opinions either way on the inclusion of any of those pages. I am going to go ahead and reflect your edits on Template:Style as well. If you have any other thoughts, please feel free to let me know!

Once again, thanks for helping out!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 06:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lead sections

edit

So there is now no guidance on how many paragraphs a lead section should be composed of? Rodericksilly (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correct, it's been switched to a word count. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
So would this user's edit now be considered an acceptable lead layout? Because it looked like a complete mess to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Only_Fools_and_Horses&diff=prev&oldid=1183400464

Rodericksilly (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can argue that's a bad edit for other reasons - a pile of short stubby paragraphs is bad writing for reasons other than there being a maximum number of paragraphs allowed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rafael Nadal article length

edit

Myself (and another editor) have reduced the length of this article substantially, but I do not find it helpful for you to keep placing a too long tag on it. How about suggesting ways to reduce the length of the page or make changes to it yourself. I agree there is still scope for it to be reduced further (there was already a consensus established for reduction), but I am not prepared to do any more reducing until I know what you think should be removed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tennishistory1877, I appreciate that you've done some work there, but there is considerably more needed, and there is an existing suggestion by another editor on the talk page about how to approach that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a comment on the career section being trimmed, with a reduction in week to week results, is that what you are referring to? Having studied the article, I am surprised how much trivia there is in it. Personally I could not care less what Rafa eats or what films he watches. Also, the sections on equipment sponsorships and endorsements seem far too long to me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, although there are absolutely other opportunities as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Library Arcanum

edit

Hey Nikkimaria

I applied for an access to Arcanum. You granted my application on 10 November 2024.

Until now I haven't received any code for the access. Last week I wrote Arcanum and they said that Wikipedia Library should provide me with a code.

Kind regards 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Malo95, you should have received an email - suggest checking your spam. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I couldn't find the mail. Have you send it to mail@malo95.ch? 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Did you receive a new notification? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I received a message at Wikipedia Library. But no E-Mail. Thank you. It works now. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stockhausen

edit

Please stop removing the opera from Oktophonie's "Related" section. Arguing that the information is contained in the opus number is like saying one can infer from A Clash of King's Dewey Decimal number that it is a sequel to A Game of Thrones. "1. ex 61" means absolutely nothing to most readers. The "Related" field in the musical composition infobox is specifically there for works like this. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that comparison makes a lot of sense, and the information is also provided above the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your logic was that the Opus number implied the relationship. That's nonsense. The "Related" field is explicitly there to spell out the relationship.Trumpetrep (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, my logic is that you've already linked the piece from the Opus number, and therefore do not need to link it again; there is a broader problem with unnecessary repetition. The Related field doesn't spell out the relationship at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024

edit
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to protect a user page

edit

How to protect a user page! Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 2008 Wiki X (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abduvaitov Sherzod 2008 Wiki X, you can request page protection here, but I'd suggest first having a read through the protection policy - you usually need to present a reason why you think the page needs to be protected according to that policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Abduvaitov Sherzod 2008 Wiki X (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

tell me why Fandom is a unreliable source

edit

You have been deleting my edits to the page "Wolfoo" because it has references from its wiki that is about the latter from Fandom(website). Why is it non-RS?Tell me. Spongebob796 (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Spongebob796, this page provides links to previous discussions, but to summarize, it's because it is a user-generated source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, sorry mate. Spongebob796 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dispute Resolution

edit

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov I was instructed by a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution page to notify you on your talk page about the request. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 November 29

edit

  Hi there, it seems that you find a copyright problems in Jordan Stolz. I've rewrite it and please check it isn't any problem. Thanks.

Rewrite: On November 2024, before the event of the 2024–25 ISU Speed Skating World Cup, he plans to speed up and stay ahead in this season. He shares his feeling and desire to go more faster as he _targets his second Olympics at Milano Cortina 2026. Stolz won four races of the open season, including setting two track records, 1000 meters in 1:07.18 and 1500 meters by 1.07 seconds record, clocking 1:43.65 in Nagano, Japan. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stevencocoboy, no, that's not going to be sufficient - that specific excerpt is still closely paraphrased from the source for it, and these kinds of issues appear to be pervasive in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
How should I wrote? Can you give me some opinion? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
In some cases, where opinions or intentions are being expressed, specific phrases like "plans to speed up" can be quoted, as long as they are appropriately marked as being direct quotes and a limited amount of quotation is used. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
First sentence rewrite: On November 2024, before the event of the 2024–25 ISU Speed Skating World Cup, he intends speed up faster in this season as he _targets his second Olympics at Milano Cortina 2026. Is this any problems? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes - "this season as he _targets his second Olympics at Milano Cortina 2026" is still copied exactly and "intends speed up faster" is almost the same as "plans to speed up", with the addition of a grammar problem. Perhaps this is a language issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I'm not American and hopefully you can considerate. First sentence rewrite: On November 2024, before the event of the 2024–25 ISU Speed Skating World Cup, he will training his speed skating skills in this season to prepare his second Olympics. Is this any problems? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider contributing to a non-English Wikipedia and/or doing tasks that don't involve adding prose? Paraphrasing can be challenging for anyone, and a language barrier only exacerbates that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
So does it any problem or any mistakes in my rewrite? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is better in terms of paraphrasing, but it is also worse in terms of English language - thus my suggestion. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot. How about second sentence rewrite: Stolz won four races in the open season, including setting two track records, 1000 meters in 1:07.18 and 1500 meters by 1.07 seconds record, clocking 1:43.65 in Nagano, Japan. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That has similar issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red December 2024

edit
 
Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.

Other ways to participate:

  Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

edit

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rolling Sky moved to draftspace

edit

Thanks for your contributions to Rolling Sky. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. VRXCES (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vrxces, this isn't my article - I think you meant to notify CertifiedAmazing2? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Apologies! VRXCES (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is photo licensed?

edit

Someone recently added this image: File:Frankie Grande Wicked Special Screening in NY.jpg to the Frankie Grande page. I clicked on the image, and it says that it is licensed under the creative commons 3.0 license, but I don't see any license at the source. Am I missing it? Thanks for any help. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ssilvers, if you click on "...more" on the description under the video, there's a CC licensing statement there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question about edit to Johnstown Flood

edit

Back in February you added {{in popular culture|date=February 2024}} to this article. Was wondering what struck you as being specifically or generally irrelevant in that section. I am going to start work on adding sources for individual entries... - Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are many entries in that section, some of which don't appear to be notable, others of which appear to be minor mentions (such as the TMNT example). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, fair enough. I'm going to work on that section & will be removing the maintenance template sometime soon. - Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mentoring for FAC

edit

Hi, I'm contacting you because I noticed your username is listed at WP:FAM and I am interested in nominating a FAC but have never done so in the past. I'm contacting several people listed as FA mentors so if you are busy that is okay. The article is Neurocysticercosis, a parasitic brain disease. I have started a peer review for the article which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question about edit to William Walker

edit

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted 22 short paragraphs that my students added to this article. Thanks, Iwritehistory100 (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iwritehistory100, biographies (even short ones) of that many other people are misplaced in an article that is meant to be a biography of Walker himself. I'm in the process of relocating the content and will ping you when that is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Iwritehistory100, now done; see List of participants in the Walker affair. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

CS1 error on List of participants in the Walker affair

edit

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of participants in the Walker affair, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Iwritehistory100, this will be for your students. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Washington

edit

Hi Nikkimaria, I've noticed your help edits on the George Washington page a week or two ago, and also your similar edits on James Madison before that. My thoughts were to ask if you might be interested in looking at the Washington page with the possibility of moving it forward for a promotion. The James Madison article from last year was promoted and I thought it might be nice to do something like this for Washington as well. The Washington page seems to average over 10K page count daily which appears to highlight its visibility to Wikipedia readers, and maybe you might think about doing it as a co-nomination. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi ErnestKrause, by promotion do you mean you'd like to nominate it for featured status? If so, I think the challenge will be ensuring that criterion 1c is met, given the sheer volume of sources out there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the FA nomination would be next in order. Your comment of the cites is accurate since the article is approaching 500 references. I've done a semi-random citation check of checking one random citation for each group of 20 cites in the article, and the article cites seem to hold up. The main ones among the citations at this time seem to be from the Ron Chernow biography of Washington which appear with some prominence throughout the article, and the cites look pretty well done. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are there other biographies that warrant additional prominence, in your view? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
From the general standpoint, following the presidents in order, then the James Adams article is currently at FA, while the Jefferson article is somewhat undeveloped. The Madison article was promoted to FA last year, if that is what you were mentioning. The Washington article seems to have gone through an early phase and a later phase of editing in Wikipedia's history, with the later phase incorporating a thorough reading of the Chernow biography from 2010 by a previous editor. The Washington article appears to have the highest daily page counts of these four president biographies. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I wasn't clear - other than Chernow, are there other biographies of Washington that you think should be given prominence in that article? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The current construction of the Wikipedia Washington biography appears to have started with the 1988 biography written by John Flexner a number of years prior to the Chernow biography in 2010. Chernow I believe currently is the most expansive and competent biography of Washington in recent years. The short list of some of John Ferling's leading book titles contains: Ferling, John E. (1988). The First of Men: A Life of George Washington. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199752751. Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution. Oxford University Press. 2002. ISBN 978-0195134094. The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon. Bloomsbury Press. (2009) ISBN 978-1608191826.
The current Wikipedia article which presently includes extensive citations to the Chernow biography is comprehensive in the coverage it provides going to about 90K in prose, and might actually be trimmed somewhat in size. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a good plan. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've noticed your previous 'condense' edit from the Madison page and was thinking maybe you could try it for the Washington page also, which you did here: [3]. The wordy parts of the Washington article would benefit from this. My own plan is to start to _target the "Commander in Chief" section which appears to be much too long at present, and it often looks like a duplication of the material already found on Wikipedia sibling pages for the 'Revolutionary War.' I'll try to start today. Regarding timing for the article upgrade, how does a co-nomination in about one week from now sound? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that's a bit tight for a turnaround. I can certainly do a condensing edit this week, but once the content is set there's some additional work to do for FA level - citation formatting, MOS edits, checking image licensing, etc. I'd say two to three weeks is probably more realistic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That sounds pretty good for 2-3 weeks. I've already taken a pass at abridging those subsections I mentioned above in the 'Commander in Chief' section of the Washington article, and the subsections in that section are now all down to 3 paragraphs or less in each subsection. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi ErnestKrause, it looks like verifiability was raised as a concern in previous FACs for the article, so a bit more in-depth spotchecking will be warranted - do you have access to the Chernow biography to check that it supports the material that it should? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'm in possession of the Chernow. In addition to the semi-random check of the article which I previously mentioned to you above, given your current note on more in-depth spotchecking I've gone further now. My current check took the first 40 citations in the article and checked all of the Chernow citations one-by-one. The result is that for the first 40 citations, there were 15 Chernow citations which held up very well on a one-by-one basis. For example, the Chernow cite for "tuberculosis" for his brother Lawrence did verify, as did the Chernow cite for "small pox" for George himself. Many of the Chernow cites also are paired as double citations along with other Washington biographers such as Ferling and others. I'm happy to do more checks on this if you think it useful, though this initial batch of Chernow cites has been fairly meticulous as to giving accurate page cites. Separately, I've further trimmed the article and removed some more of the images; the prose length may be lower now by 10K to 15K than previously. Your 'condensing' from yesterday looks effective for the opening sections and I'll look for more of it to come in the remaining sections. I'm going to continue with more MOS checks for now, and let me know if I should do more with the Chernow spotchecking. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

That looks like a productive week-end of nice edits for you in the article. Very clever use of the postage stamp image for Long Island. Are there any other areas that might need some further research or proof-reading. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was looking through some of the old reviews, and one major issue that came up other than verifiability and length was the use of dated and/or web sources over recent scholarship. There's a few dated sources remaining - do you want to take a look at potential replacements? Thinking particularly of Adams 1928 which should be a fairly straightforward swap. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also Freedman, which appears to be juvenile literature - that was another type of sources that was raised as to be avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed on Freedman, and his book is now switched out with my rewrites for the new source which I have added. Alter wording as needed. The Adams (1928) cite on Benedict Arnold seems innocent enough and appears accurate. Let me know if you want it changed out. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think accuracy is an issue, and I don't think we need to absolutely eliminate all older works, but I do think this particular one is worth replacing - it should be easy to do and not worth drawing extra scrutiny over.
Agreed. I'll try to have it switched out in the morning. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Adams 1928 removal was more of a clean-up than a revision since his material is covered by the Philbrick and Chernow cites already there. Let me know if there are more of these or if further research might be needed after your good trims from earlier. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cite #30 in article appears to have stopped working correctly on this edit [4]. Cite format listed in cite #30 itself for Coe in Bibliography. Could you look at it? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm noticing the Holiday Greetings you are receiving below, and its been 2 weeks of improvement edits to Washington. Any thoughts of whether it might be good timing for putting the article up for FAC either before or after holiday celebration in 4 days? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd suggest 27 December. In the interim, can you look through the old reviews and double-check that you think the previous objections have been satisfied? I think we're close but another pair of eyes wouldn't hurt. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good for 27 December. The cites seem to have largely been holding up, and I'll double check another ten of them today. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.s. I've just done all of "T to Z" in the book cites, and "Twohig, Dorothy (2001)" is coming back as an insecure link on my screen. Could you give it a look. The others are linking successfully mostly to Google Books. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.s. I've continued further this morning and just done all of "P to Z" in the book cites, and "Rasmussen, William M. S.; Tilton, Robert S. (1999). George Washington: The Man Behind the Myths. University Press of Virginia," is linking to a book about Hamilton by another author. I could just drop the link though I thought you might want to know. I'll try to do more cite link checks this evening. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.s. All the rest of the cite links for books did check out now from "A to Z". I'm not sure I'll be signing on much for the next day or two until Thursday and Friday. Good holidays. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like GMT is saying that it is 11-27-2024 and I'm thinking that I could put it on FAC either now or tomorrow night, unless you would like to do it at a different time. Article looks fairly stable. Any preferences? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Either is fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nomination is in with your name added in the preface to the nomination as the co-nominator, and you can add your signature to it whenever you are ready. I'll try to sign in tomorrow morning if there are any comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be new comment on the review page which I've started to address. Maybe you can pick up some of them, and I'll get to more of them tomorrow. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

More from Gog the Mild which I've started on. Maybe you can look at another of the subsections he looked at. I'll try to sign on tomorrow night again. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm discovering this book on the Grand Forage of 1778 which you introduced as a link last week here: [5]. Your link is in the Valley Forge section. It looks like Gog the Mild has added some new comments today, which I'll start in on. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks ErnestKrause - for the lead I'd suggest focusing on Washington's role rather than the general context of the war. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Nice to see you are online at this hour. Since you have been handling most of the lede revisions maybe you would like to pick at this time on the edit requests from Gog the Mild? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead and completed those comments from Gog the Mild, and I'll be signing off for now. I'll try to sing on tomorrow night again. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

(arbitrary section break)

edit

More useful comments from Gog the Mild which I've gone through; one remains if you might confirm the cost inflation conversions which he mentions. Otherwise, I'm assuming all the other edit requests from all the other editors are up to date up to today. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Filippo Mazzei spam

edit

Hello Nikkimaria. I noticed our friend who was trying to add extraneous information about Filippo Mazzei to the American Revolution article has been adding the similar content to related articles as well; for instance he added Mazzei to Founding Fathers of the United States and List of military leaders in the American Revolutionary War. And he loves using the phrase "promoter of liberty" to describe Mazzei; as far as I can tell Mazzei is the only person described as such on Wikipedia. I've tried to fix these issues but wanted to give you a heads up. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: November 2024

edit
 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

What does rm-non RS mean?

edit

Answer me. ZeroTwoAndHiroWW2 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It means the content was removed because it cited an unreliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deaths from cardiovascular disease

edit

I have to agree with you that not all known causes of disease are defining. However I think the ending of our overly large tree of death by cause articles, which leads to Rome people being in a half smdozen or more death cats, it going to have to be done on a case by case basis. I think Containerizing the cardiovascular disease Category is a good first step. I think the other thing we need to do is take seriously the fact that place of death is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed on the latter, though I hold out hope on the former. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
To do the last we need to treat things like "deaths from infectious disease" as container categories all the way down. So that deaths from infectious diseases in California only has sub-categories and no direct articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

edit

Mount Rushmore navbox image

edit

Probably a better image, thanks (the one replaced was very good except for the pesky cloud). On your image {{Mount Rushmore}}, could that be the shadow and hair of Donald Trump nudging in to take his place to the right of Lincoln? I don't know if I've come to your talk page before, but certainly have joined you in many RM's thoughout the years. Happy holidays and best wishes for 2025. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (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) 15:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cheers and best to you as well! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas!

edit
  A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!  


Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, best wishes for the new year! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata "United States of America" vs "United States"

edit

Nikkimaria -- you've participated in a previous discussion on Wikidata about this topic, which never reached consensus.

I invite you to review a current effort to reach consensus and to participate if you are interested: Wikidata "United States of America" vs "United States" Lorenmaxwell (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy Christmas

edit
  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025

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 12:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

edit

DYK for Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121

edit

On 26 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on 26 December 1724 J. S. Bach directed the first performance of Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121, based on a hymn written by Martin Luther in 1524? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

 
story · music · places

Thank you for your help with the article, making my second Christmas story possible. Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for British Library

edit

British Library has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I saw you deleted my edit of Rand Brooks's article where I added his son Alexander died in 2016.

edit

Is there a reason for it? The article mentioned his first wife being deceased

"He married Lois Laurel (d. 2017)"

and yet you got rid of my edit of his son's death. I'm a little confused so I'm wondering if there's a reason for it. RayKVega (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi RayKVega, the source you provided for that claim is generally considered unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hair

edit

Thanks for your edits to the Lead at Hair (musical). Can you give the rest of the article a similar treatment? Happy New Year, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question

edit

Hello Nikkimaria. Thanks for approving my Newspaper.com access request on the Wikipedia Library at the start of this month. Would you know how long Newspaper.com usually takes to next approve the request? Regards, starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Starship, yours was approved already - if you log into your Newspapers.com account you should have full access. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Nikkimaria. This is certainly a welcome surprise. I logged in and they list me as 'Subscriber'. I suppose it has indeed worked! Lucky I checked in with you or I would just continue to wait. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Editor's Barnstar
To Nikkimaria for this edit and others. We couldn't be here without you! Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 224, December 2024

edit
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red January 2025

edit
 
 
Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page.

Other ways to participate:

  Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Mary Ball Washington article & years-living

edit

I have a couple of thoughts about your recent edits removing birth years & death years citing MOS:BIRTHDATE in the Mary Ball Washington article...

  • Many times in colonial American families, duplicate names are repeated from generation to generation and sometimes even repeated within a generation with especially male cousins and various male relatives being given the same name. The only way to keep them straight is to have the birth years & death years given alongside the names. In the Mary Ball Washington article, "Joseph Ball" is a name that is repeated between father and son and so it is helpful to readers to give the birth year & death year along with the name, for instance Joseph Ball(1649–1711) is the father and Joseph Ball (1689–1760) is the son.
  • The MOS states "birth and death details"...are the actual years of birth & of death the details meant in this part of the MOS? If these years appear in the sources that are cited, it seems to me that the particular information should also appear in the articles (the months & days, for instance, would seem to be a possible trivial detail.) The actual length of people's lives who are members of notable figures' families - even if these people do not have their own Wikipedia article - can be important for our readership. I think including the birth year/death year should be retained.
    • Btw when I dug through the changing statements for MOS:Birthdate, I came upon this edit. The editor who added the initial statement seems to mostly have been referring to the subject of the article, that Wikipedia didn't need to repeat the subject's birth year & death year within the article text (especially because that information already appears in the lead section), it doesn't really seem to refer to other people's years-living information within an article. A pattern I noticed for this article is that even if the 2 Joseph Balls' years-lving is restored...well, when the years-living are removed, at least in this article, it reveals a possible iniquity regarding the familial women's information. - Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Shearonink, as far as I'm aware, previous discussions around the issue have come to the consensus that years for family members should generally be excluded (example; I recall a more recent discussion but can't find it at the moment). This seems consistent with WP:NOTCATALOG as well. In the context of this article, in the locations where the dates were included for the two Josephs, they are already being introduced as her father and half-brother, which provides the necessary context. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The linked discussion you mention above was concerned with what "special contextual relevance" meant and there was no resolution. I think the birth year/death year is not trivial, is useful information for our readers, and such information does serve to differentiate, in an immediately clear way, historical people in an article who have the same name. WP:NOTACATALOG wouldn't seem to be all that relevant here since it is only concerned with Wikipedia Lists. We will have to agree to disagree on the matter of birth year/death year being included in articles. People's lifespans - when they are born and when they died - seems rather important to me. - Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Y2K.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Input on query at ACLU article

edit

Hiya. Your input would be appreciated if you have any thoughts on query at Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union#"History"_section_vs_History_of_the_American_Civil_Liberties_Union_.._too_much_overlap? Noleander (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:Penina Moise

edit
 

Hello, Nikkimaria. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Penina Moise".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please consider archiving much of your User talk page

edit

Your User talk page is so long that it may present challenges for some readers' devices. The current rule-of-thumb is to archive when a Talk page exceeds 75 KB and this page is nearing 400 KB. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Specifying borough as place of birth / death in infobox

edit

See Template talk:Infobox person#Specifying birth/death place within a city for a discussion I started to address your removal of a borough of New York City as place of birth and death in the infobox for Alan Berkman. I pinged you there, but wanted to be sure that you had been properly notified of the discussion. Alansohn (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Newspapers.com

edit

You approved my application for access to Newspapers.com on Jan. 5, 2025, but it doesn't yet show up in "My Collections". Am I just impatient, or is there a problem? Thanks. Peter Flass (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter Flass, it has to be processed by Newspapers.com - check again in a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Peter Flass (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

ACLU History - Any text deleted?

edit

Hi. I'm starting to work on ACLU History section, as mentioned in talk page at Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union#"History"_section_vs_History_of_the_American_Civil_Liberties_Union_.._too_much_overlap?

Just to confirm: In April 2024, when you split-off the History section into new article History_of_the_American_Civil_Liberties_Union all the text (from the orig History section) was retained (in the new article) correct? Knowing that would be helpful as I go forward in the main ACLU article. Thanks 18:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Noleander (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Noleander, almost but not quite - here are the differences. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  NODES
admin 7
COMMUNITY 4
Idea 4
idea 4
INTERN 4
Note 13
Project 35
twitter 4
USERS 4
Verify 1