Jump to content

User talk:Amakuru/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

July music

story · music · places

The story is today about the first published composition by Arnold Schönberg which I was blessed to hear. Listen, and perhaps read what Alma Mahler (to-be-Mahler at the time, to be precise, who was present at the first performance) said, and yes that was too much for the Main page ;) - Thank you for adding the title! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Happy new month, @Gerda Arendt: and thanks for sharing your photographs from June... some very delicious looking food! I will have a look at the things you mentino later on!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, - today's story is about a Bach cantata premiered 300 years ago OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Libuše Domanínská, the subject of yesterday's story, would have turned 100 today, but I missed that ;) - Overnight, Tamara Milashkina became GA and Lando Bartolini went to the Main page. I made my story about his almost unbelievable career, from Luigi in Il tabarro in Philadelphia in 1968 (with a nod to Liberty) up to Calaf in Turandot in Beijing in 1999 ;) - 4 July is also the birthday of Brian Boulton who was a pioneer of a concise infobox in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
On a friend's birthday - she is pictured on my talk - I have another RD death article that needs reviewing, Martti Wallén. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and related to three items of music: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, the bass and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia, and her article would be better with more details about her music-making. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Today's story is about an outstanding violinist from Georgia, which is a sad story in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: it seems like she had a very distinguished career. RIP, sad indeed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I rather meant that the lead went to 1988 but the sadness began in 1995. - Today, thank you for UEFA Euro 2004 Final, introduced in 2021) as about "the 2004 edition of the European Championship, and it brought one of the greatest shocks in the history of football. Outsiders Greece, who had never won a game at a major tournament before, stormed through the tournament, beating hosts Portugal in the opening game and then seeing off the tournament-holders France in the quarter-final and the Czech Republic in the semi-final. In the final, they met Portugal again and, through a combination of resolute defending and nicking a goal from a corner, they managed to overcome Portugal in their own back yard for a second time to claim the trophy."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I remember today Bach's 1724 cantata for this Sunday which is unusual in many respects. Another woman needs attention for RD, Marina Kondratyeva. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the notes on the cantata, Gerda Arendt and for reminding me of the FA I wrote on the Euro 2004 final. Today was the 2024 final in Berlin and sadly England lost again, as in 2021. The winning Spanish team played very well though. All the best for the coming week  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Moar: My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday I listened in concert to Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, with Sabine Meyer: a delight, and very intimate (yt with same people). - Today's story is about Ruth Hesse, with a pic in the article only, sadly. I found it difficult to point at a YouTube sample, because yes, her signature roles - the Nurse and Brangäne - exist in great full-length operas with great casts, but hard to find her. - Talking of YouTube: today I was pointed at Elijah by a friend who performed in the concert of the Dessoff Choirs in their centenary year, and I'm quite impressed by samples (beginning and No. 32 where I linked it) - enjoy! --(forgot to sign)
Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: fantastic, sounds like a great concert. I am walking in the Yorkshire Dales, fantastic scenery I'll upload some pics in a few days.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, looking forward! - Today's story begins with Psalm 124, paraphrased in 1524, and put to five (!) chorale settings in one cantata by Bach in 1724, for this Sunday. Nominated for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a look at music (on my talk) shows remembrance of three people who died, and then creating an article or improving one is all I can do. Three are on the Main page today, and three others planned ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b will have a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, should be better, help wanted. - Plenty of music on my parents anniversary day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Tink discography

hey Would you be interested in creating a page for Tink's latest album, winter diary 5? KARANSUTTA (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Tennis

Everyone disagreed with you here but you just ignore them to have your own way? WT:In the news/Archive 111#Linking of sports in blurbs, nice one. Stephen 23:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen: - "everyone disagreed" is putting it a bit strongly... It seemed like Bagumba was tacitly agreeing with the point that they could access the sport through the bolded link, making the responses 2 to 1. Anyway, what's more telling is that the editors proposing and posting these hooks on the ground at ITN more often than not seem to omit the link, and that has nothing to do with me. It suggests the feeling in the ground is different from the sentiment in that discussion. This tennis one was proposed at ITN/C and posted with no link. We also had a cricket one last week which moved down ITN without a link for about five days, with nobody intervening and no apparent issues.[1] More often that not I think you and I are in agreement about ITN edits these days, but in this case I'm really quite puzzled as to why you'd prefer the version where a full 12 of the 18 words in the hook are blue... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it’s not worth fussing over. Sorry for starting this thread, best wishes. Stephen 16:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, no worries and agree it's not a big deal. We just love to argue over tiny details sometimes...!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Priestess" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Priestess has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Priestess until a consensus is reached. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Let There Be Peace on Earth (disambiguation)

Notice

The article Let There Be Peace on Earth (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER, secondary topic is already hat-noted in Let There Be Peace on Earth, no incoming links

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Culture of Rwanda, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gerda Arendt and thank you for the above stories. Good to hear! I'm on vacation at the moment in Kenya, but finding a bit of time in between swims in the pool/ocean and walks on the beach to sort out a few of the upcoming pictures of the day!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia editing by the Indian Ocean
That looks lovely, enjoy! - On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. For the beauty of the earth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Today's story is about a stage director, - watch Aida, so tender so cruel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Sunday story about another of Bach's chorale cantatas, listen, as I listened to two impressive very different choral concerts, - music by 16 composers. In the latest cloudy pictures: a hidden deer, a cat and a blaze of a sunset. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Help? My story today is about a woman, nominated for RD but needing support as I write this. A composer died whose article is long and mostly unreferenced. And some articles open for review, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Today is the birthday of Alma Mahler. I believe that Siegfried Lorenz should be mentioned on the Main page among the Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
... and he appeared! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

move review

If the closing rationale is don't see any kind of slam-dunk argument in the overturn !votes to suggest that I should not find consensus with the majority, why would you count involved participants in calculating those numbers? Among those completely uninvolved, more supported overturning, no? who believed that the participants of the RM and move closer had interpreted sourcing correctly in regard to how it terms this topic, and that there was no POVTITLE. It's striking how many of those endorsing present arguments or sources which say not that "the debate over whether this is genocide is called 'gaza genocide'" but rather that "this is genocide". That is, of course, different from the subject of the article itself, which is about the debate, so without consensus to change the subject of the article, any source which doesn't make clear that the term is used to talk about the debate itself doesn't actually support this title. Anyway, I'm not going to initiate some challenge-challenge or anything and cheers for taking on a contentious discussion, but I'll register disappointment in the determination that fundamentally style-based arguments (counting sources to choose one from many possible titles) should ever be considered equal or greater in strength than a substantiated NPOV argument (which, in this case, finds its substance in both the subject of the article and every source about the debate that doesn't call it "gaza genocide" -- but that doesn't lend to a simple keyword to choose in a stylistic argument... it requires a descriptive title). YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: thanks for your comment, and your registered disappointment is noted. I don't stray into the Israel–Palestine area too often - I don't really have the time or energy for protracted debates on every little question... In this case, however, it was a month-old move review with lots of discussion, that just seemed to need someone uninvolved with the question to evaluate and close it. I get that you, and probably all of those who thought the close should be overturned, would not be happy with this outcome - you !voted to overturn, so clearly you think that was the right outcome. But equally had I closed the MRV as "overturn" those who supported the move and those who endorsed the close, not to mention the closer himself, would have been unhappy with me instead. That's why I attempted to phrase the close as I did, summarising that I didn't see any arguments about the close on either side that would suggest a policy or guideline-based reason to overturn or uphold the close. Note that had the close of the MRV been "no consensus", the outcome would still have been to endorse the closure, so to actually overturn the move I would have needed to see an overwhelming rationale for why the closure needed overturning and the numbers in the MRV were wrong, something that just wasn't present in either the numbers or my assessment of the debate. Some sources don't call it a "Gaza genocide", but also many sources and many international bodies do call it that. There's no right or wrong answer. Finally, you mention a distinction between involved and uninvolved commenters at the MRV, but I've never heard that closers are supposed to discard or even downplay the !votes of those who participated in the discussion. The instructions merely say "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review", which colours that editor's viewpoint on the close, but does not invalidate it. And lots of uninvolved people endorsed the close too. Anyway, sorry if this is a rambling response, but ultimately while I understand you won't be satisfied with the outcome, I hope this goes some way to explaining it. Without invoking some sort of WP:SUPERVOTE, I don't think the MRV could reasonably have been closed the way you want, notwithstanding that many such as yourself find there to be strong POV problem with the Gaza genocide title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't stray into the Israel–Palestine area too often Neither do I. I'm not "unhappy" because of the consequences for the pro-Israel side; I jumped in (against my better judgment) because I saw a core safeguard failing to the detriment of the project and hoped I could help. Specifically, the role of the closer in weighing the strength of arguments. In this case, that didn't properly happen. We had a closer which simply accepted the framing put forward by the [narrow] majority that it must be a source keyword-counting game and weighed counter-arguments according to that framing. Furthermore, he put stylistic arguments and NPOV arguments on equal footing, which they absolutely shouldn't be. We go around telling people that numbers alone don't win arguments on Wikipedia because consensus is based on the strength of those arguments, but that relies on closers (or review-closers) seeing that the majority's argument isn't as strong. Instead, the move review again cites numbers (including members of the same majority through involved !votes) and again accepts that the arguments are equal. So it's less that I'm unhappy at the article title and more that I'm unhappy at providing the world with a high-profile example of our system failing. Or so says this one Wikipedian, anyway.
I know this is unpleasant for a lot of people, and I don't want to belabor it, so this will be my only follow-up response. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

typo?

You wrote in your close of the move review This point was countered by those endorsing, who believed that the participants of the RM and move closer had interpreted sourcing correctly in regard to how it terms this topic, and that there was no POVTITLE, but this doesn't quite make sense. Surely you mean This point was countered ... and that there was no NPOVTITLE or This point was countered ... and that the name is valid under POVTITLE or This point was countered ... and that there was no POVTITLE conflict with the name or something similar?

POVTITLEs are potentially a problem even when they're the common name, but an absence of a POVTITLE is not a problem for anyone. I didn't notice anyone discussing an absence of POVTITLEs.

I would recommend a clarification (especially since your close might eventually get cited by media or researchers and letting them waste time on trying to interpret ambiguous text would not be in the interests of Wikipedia). A minimal change would be to add the word issue at the end of the sentence, per my 2nd and 3rd suggestions, but more compact. Boud (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with page moves

Hello! Matthew here with Seminole Hard Rock Support Services at Hard Rock International.

Over on the Hard Rock Cafe talk page, I've proposed splitting the Hard Rock Cafe page to Hard Rock International and Hard Rock hotels and casinos, in order to separate out text about the restaurant brand from the parent company and Hard Rock's properties. I've saved Draft:Hard Rock International and Draft:Hard Rock hotels and casinos to demonstrate what the pages would look like. Another editor has supported the split but suggested I seek help with the page and section moves.

I noticed that you have responded to requests submitted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so I am hoping you might be able to answer a question for me. Would it be appropriate for me to submit requests to move Draft:Hard Rock International to Hard Rock International, and/or Draft:Hard Rock hotels and casinos to Hard Rock hotels and casinos? Or, are you able to assist with moving these pages and sections? I'm not entirely sure how this process should be completed.

Thanks for any guidance here! MattHardRockInt (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy because my story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk)

Happier about Bach's cantata on the Main page on its 300th birthday (per calendar), my story (again)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with a DYK hook from 2010 and another from 2014, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

GMC RM

I hope I'm not being rude or out of line. You just posted at GMC RM. I wonder if I could get you to take a peek at a new section I just posted named "Sources for Gun Motor Carriage as a proper name"? It's not very deep. No reply is needed in either place, and I hope this isn't canvassing or anything. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Atlantic hurricane season vandal

This is the first time I'm actually making a topic on any talk page, so I apologize if I do or say something wrong. I noticed that you blocked the user SahebPlays for vandalising both the article in the title and other articles. A user (Whiquipedia) vandalized the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season page repeatedly and severely right before SahebPlays, and their account creation dates are a mere 10 minutes apart, with both vandalizing weather-related pages. Despite this, Whiquipedia has not been warned or blocked. Once again, this is my first time doing this, so sorry if I get anything wrong. Kingnoahrules (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hello,

Thank you for your contribution to presidential election. In my view, it will shape America and the world. Regarding the inforBox photo, I would like some feedback on when and how we can finialize the RfC. It started in April 2024, so it's been quite a while now, so I hope we can replace the photo. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

POTD Questions

Hello, @Amakuru. I wanted to know the best way to get started at the WP:Picture of the day avenue of Wikipedia. Do you have any tips or helpful things that I can use for my benefit? Also, in Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page do you usually skip all of the currency featured pictures in the first page and go to the second page when looking for an image? Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 00:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cowboygilbert: and thanks for your interest in POTD! WP:POTD/G is a good place to start in terms of instructions for what to do. The process can be a bit fiddly at times, but most of it does not need to be super precise - if we end up with things on strange days it's not the end of the world. Here's a little guide for things to think about:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this! It certainly is very helpful and i’ll take it all into consideration. I also do think that the category is listed by media added date. So the first is the oldest but don’t quote me on it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
, I am back to ask another question. I created a blurb for Juniper berry and was wondering if you can look over it to see if it'll be good enough for the Main Page. (as it's my first and don't wanna get made fun of by others).
A juniper berry is the female seed cone produced by the various species of junipers and are used as a flavoring agent in northern European and Scandinavian cuisine for meat dishes. Juniper is used to flavor gin, a liquor developed in the 17th century in the Netherlands. Juniper berries are among the only spices derived from conifers, along with spruce buds. This photograph shows the soft fleshy cones of the common juniper. This image is a focus-stacked image consisting of 55 images. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@Cowboygilbert: that looks great - fully referenced and covers the important details. Feel free to create that one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Amakuru's quick guide to POTD

Referencing of the blurb

Probably the most important rule for me, and I'll I'd say up front, is that because this is main page content the material that you use in the blurb must be fully cited and compliant with WP:V. Unlike the rest of the main page, we don't have the requirement for full referencing on the linked article itself, mainly because that would immediately rule out more than half of our featured pictures and historically we haven't regarded it as part of a featured picture author's job to also work on the linked article...

So what you can't do, and were many newcomers to POTD go wrong, is to simply copy the lede of the article verbatim, without checking that what you're copying is cited. This also makes the job significantly harder. In many cases it means looking at the material in the article and going out to find sources for the things it says - either online or in Google Books. This is a recent example I worked on: [2]... and note that the linked page there is an FA, so really there shouldn't be anything uncited there - but you have to check anyway, and I found that one lacking (it's FA candidacy was in 2006 so has no doubt slipped a lot since then).

In cases where the article is so poorly cited that it's basically impossible to construct a decent blurb without extensive research, I simply add them to the category Category:Picture of the day/Unused and then list them at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused#Ones primarily blocked by articles. I have a long-term goal of trying to clear that list a bit with trips to the library or more extensive research, but I haven't found the time for that lately... something to consider if you have a bit more time to devote to this!

Selecting POTDs

You asked above whether to use Category:Featured pictures that have not appeared on the Main Page for this, and that could be one way, but I think they're listed in alphabetical order there, and the general procedure is that we list the ones that were featured longest ago (currently roughly 2022 era). The "official" way of selecting, if there can be said to be such a thing, is to to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs and then find pics from the earliest "group" that haven't yet been scheduled. That's obviously hit-and-miss, since things haven't been done in strict order, but groups 73 and 74 appear to be the current ones with FPs from around 2022.

But personally I don't even use that. I ended up developing my own desktop app which uses the Wiki API to scour through all FPs and then rank them for me, while also giving the ability to filter by category. And it lists FP sets (such as the currency ones) in a separate section so that I can occasionally schedule a whole group of those together. There's a screenshot of my app on the right here, but as I say it's desktop-only and a little esoteric at present - designed to work the way I want it to rather than for public consumption! If I ever get time I might try to make a version of it that can store its results online somewhere, but that's more of a BHAG. If you're on Windows and want a copy of it yourself I could probably send it to you, but as I say it's a bit rough and ready so no guarantees on its operation!

Ordering

So, as I said above, in general the rule is oldest first. However, there is also a need not to have several days in a row with the same topic (e.g. currencies), so I try to mix things up as much as possible, at least within blocks of days. It's worth noting that of approximately 528 current unused FPs (not counting those in sets), 184 are animal FPs, i.e. around a third. And of those animal FPs, 91 are birds. So in general I'm aiming to put an animal every three days, with those alternating on a six-day cycle between birds and non-birds.

People is another fairly large category - 107 according to the tool currently. So try to get those in fairly frequently where possible. Sometimes I schedule people on their birthdays, sometimes not. (I wouldn't generally schedule on the death date, unless it's a death anniversary that's getting a lot of coverage in the news, I think birth dates are a much more positive way to commemorate someone).

Other than that, you can do anniversaries where it's an obvious one (and the anniversary itself is cited). And while in general oldest first is the correct order, it's occasionally fine to slot in more recently promoted ones for a bit of variety or topical interest. Today's entry File:NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test Launch (NHQ202406050029).jpg was an example of that, it was only promoted last week but I thought it interesting while the crew are still stranded in space etc.

(Sorry, I ended up writing a bit of an essay there in the end!) Hope it gives you some useful starting points anyway, and if you have any other questions, don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Quick sanity check

I don't want to waste any more of your time with this silliness, but I'm worried that there's something else I did wrong on Abstraction other than "not read far enough back in the edit history"? All that was meant was reversion of explicit bad-faith edits, which we definitely do do without particular regard for their content (e.g. WP:BANREVERT.) Remsense ‥ 论 10:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Hello and thanks for the message. To answer your question whether you did anything wrong, I'd say not exactly, since it seems your edits were in good faith. But I don't agree that the edits you mention were in bad faith. This disruption started because someone decided back in August to make a pointless tweak on the page to change the way a silly game worked. This was reverted by Justsomeguy0418 but has subsequently been reinstated repeatedly, including with talk page messages acknowledging that there was no other reason for doing this than to affect the game. I can't speak for the motivation of the IP you reverted today, but I think slapping a vandalism accusation on them and insisting he they need talk page consensus for their edits, when ultimately they were among those helping to undo the disruption, seems wrong. Maybe there's some other angle I'm missing though. In the mean time, restoring the status quo before the disruption started seems the way to go. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Question again

Hey, @Amakuru again. Was wondering, what would you do if you you had two Featured Pictures of the same article. Would you put them both together or would you do them by separate years/months? I've been trying to clear unused images that are before Group 75, lol.

  • image 1
    image 1
  • image 2
    image 2

The two images that I linked are of the same topic, Iolanthe. Thanks! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 23:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: hello again! Often it's a bit of a judgement call on that... Personally I base it on how closely I think the images are related to each other. If the images are individually interesting with differing features (as the above two posters are, I would say) then I'd list them separately, with a gap of a year maybe. An example is the various pics in The_Hunting_of_the_Snark#Illustrations, which were all listed separately. Having multiple pics in a set I'd tend to reserve for things like coins, banknotes (where there's a single series of various denominations) and multiple parts of a collage, that sort of thing. In general, I'd hope there aren't too many very old things remaining now - the main exception is for things like Silver certificate (United States), which has a full 47 featured pictures in it, of which 37 have run so far. I'm spacing them out to avoid it getting repetitive, the last one was in March. There are various other sets of that nature - other currencies, US president monographs etc - which I put in from time to time - they occupy a separate section on my app so are easy to spot.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

POTD - Just give me a shout if you ever need a break

Hi Amakuru, I just got my bit back, and wanted to let you know that I'm willing to help with the scheduling and maintenance of POTD if you need any help. I had run the section after Howcheng stepped down (2013/2014?) through 2018, so I'm a bit rusty - I certainly don't have a nifty desktop app! - but I can get things done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Hi, and congratulations on getting the bit back... Good to see you returning to the fold in the past couple of years. It does seem like POTD is mostly a one-person job, and often with no sort of discussion either. When you left in 2018, I just decided to pick up the pieces as nobody else was doing it,it seemed like fun and there was going to be a void. Then a couple of years later, others started stepping in but by late 2022 there were holes appearing in the schedule again so I stepped back up. Anyway, many hands make light work so no reason we can't all work on it. I've been trying to reflect the counts a bit in my scheduling, such as on average every three days have an animal since that's the proportion in the FP count. And those animals alternate between bird and non-bird. As I mentioned above to Cowboygilbert, I have really tried to be a stickler for the notion that all the text actually used in the blurb should be cited... This can certainly add to the workload and not sure if it was something that was in place in your day, but I think with this material appearing on the main page it really should be a good done that way. Anyway, happy editing and see you around.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No, that hadn't been in place at the time, in part because so many articles were underreferenced. That being said, it is certainly a good approach! I'll poke in and help out every now and then, if that's okay with you. I don't intend to become as active as I was before, but I do want to help lighten the load. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why "Geoff Foost"?

It's an odd thing to do. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Exolaunch&diff=next&oldid=957088316

—Ben Brockert (42) 16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Brockert: hmm... I'm not really sure what I was thinking at that time four years ago. Probably it was just a simple copying error where I thought of the name in my head and then mistransliterated it in generating the source. Thanks for the spot anyway, hopefully I've fixed it now.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

today Rohan de Saram - unbelievable story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Gerda Arendt:. Very interesting and great work on bringing that to our attention! BTW you may be interested in an upcoming POTD I've just written on Swedish soprano Anna Bartels... it sounds like she had a very distinguished career.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, seen and liked! - I hope you followed reading to a rich day. Today a caricature, for a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy whatever you celebrate today, greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: have a fantastic trip!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Munchkin cat

Why did you undo a move/restore a title that had been stable for a decade?

'Munchkin cat' is a perfectly natural and normal disambiguation from the potentially mistakeable 'Munchkin (cat)' which could just be a cat with the name 'Munchkin', e.g. Socks (cat).

See here for examples: [3] [4] and I have textbooks, aimed at veterinary professionals, that use the term 'Munchkin cat'. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

POTD

Hi, I wanted to ask you, can commons:FPs be used for WP:POTD or is that strictly limited to WP:FPs? Can an image which is not featured on English wikipedia but has been featured on commons be used as a POTD here? UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX: hi, I'm afraid they do have to be Wikipedia FPs specifically, Commons FPs are not automatically in scope. Commons FPs are often fairly easy passes at WP:FPC if there's an appropriate linked article, but rejections do sometimes occur if the people in the discussion feel that it doesn't offer sufficient encyclopedic value, bearing in mind that, in contrast to Commons, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Also, sometimes !voters on en-wiki reject a Commons FP just because they don't agree with the Commons community that the image in question is actually technically and visually excellent. If there are particular pics you'd like to include in POTD your best bet is to nominate them at FPC and take it from there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Hello. On a recent discussion you ignored editors invoking IAR and said that there was no valid argument for their viewpoints. I'm actually curious, as I've found no administrators who will close a discussion using the policy (in this example you not only didn't use it, you ignored those citing it). Respectfully, do you not realize that IAR is policy? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You may have missed this question or are limited in time, but please answer it at some point. WP:IAR was invoked by at least two editors at a discussion, and other editors implied it (and I will probably ping them back to the discussion to ask them if they would state it outright), yet you said no policy had been brought forward. The arguments for IAR's use at the discussion to maintain Wikipedia's content seem as sound as I've ever read or written. I guess my questions are, how do you view the policy IAR, how did you miss it being mentioned as policy in the discussion, and have you ever allowed its use in a comparable situation, or in any situation. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Morning @Randy Kryn: I hope you're well and apologies, I did see the note above but I've just been a little busy the past couple of days and hadn't had sufficient time to give it a detailed reply yet. So yes, you're absolutely right - WP:IAR is a policy, and in fact it's one of the most important policies we have, to ensure that we stay focused on our goal of building an encyclopedia rather than getting railroaded by policies and guidelines which don't further that goal in a particular instance. In fact, as you'll probably be aware, the spirit of IAR is even enshrined into one of our five pillars, WP:5P5, which says that "Wikipedia has no firm rules".
However, what I don't think this means - and what I don't think it was ever intended to mean - is that we should take it literally and simply "ignore all rules". I can't start hurling insults and personal attacks at someone right now and claim I was invoking IAR - I'd be blocked immediately. The actual wording of the rule doesn't say to simply ignore the policies and guidelines, it says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". My take on that, and I think the take most Wikipedians would have, is that this wording is designed to cover cases where it's very obvious to everyone why the rules don't fit that circumstance.
To take the RM process in particular, the principle that titles should follow the policy at WP:AT and the guidelines at WP:MOS is very long established, and it's always been widely understood and accepted that the process of assessing a consensus in a requested-move discussion involves reading the comments made through the lens of those policies and others across the project. If everyone were free to invoke IAR as a reason to support or oppose a particular move, with whoever's in the majority carrying the argument irrespective of anything else, then there wouldn't be much point in having policies and guidelines at all. See Talk:Civil rights movement/Archive 12#Requested move 23 November 2017 for an example which you'll no doubt recall very well, the request to make the title lowercase and when the closer weighed up the arguments based on the evidence and the guidelines, they assessed that the move had consensus, despite there not being a particular numerical majority in favour.
Anyway, I'm probably not going to change your mind on this as you've held the view for many years that important definable topics such as the civil rights movement should be capitalised. I can see from this discussion with SMcCandlish that this has been an ongoing discussion for at least the past decade, in which repeated discussion is unlikely to change very much. I respect your right to have an opinion, and of course I respect all the good work you do across the project, but that doesn't mean closers of discussions are likely to consider "we should make an IAR exception of this because it's important" as a particularly valid argument in a discussion when sourcing suggests it's not routinely treated as a proper name. Cheers, and happy editing  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed reply, and IAR surely is one of the most interesting points of contention on Wikipedia. Larry Sanger gave us a true gift while designing much of the website's core. I'll respectfully take issue with your sentence above: "However, what I don't think this means - and what I don't think it was ever intended to mean - is that we should take it literally and simply 'ignore all rules'". Well, yes it does, and WP:IAR's wording probably couldn't be made clearer. In order to maintain Wikipedia sometimes all of the rules have to be ignored. As in this instance, maintaining the long-term uppercased proper names of the largest structures on Earth. It seems that in order to do so, Wikipedians (administrators included) will have to ignore the casing guideline and apply a commonsense exception and an overriding policy. The casings of tectonic plates go about 50-50, so this isn't a case of extreme IAR, just enough to let long-term use and commonsense play a role in maintaining the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies when ignoring a rule is necesssary to make an objective improvement to the encyclopedia. For years, Randy Kryn has (disruptively, in my view) tried to force onto Wikipedia an entirely subjective personal habit (common to advertising material and officialese, not academic or even journalistic writing) of misusing capital letters to attempt to signify "importance", "majorness", "influence", "acceptance", "truth", "vast size", "temporal staying power", and other such subjective notions (personal philosophizing about why something "should" be treated as a "proper name" in his idiosyncratic view), when independent reliable sources are in the main not capitalizing what he wants to capitalize. We have specific guidelines at MOS:SIGCAPS against this practice, a clear objective standard at the top of MOS:CAPS for how to determine whether to capitalize something (based on independent RS usage doing it near-uniformly), and more often than not topic-specific guidelines also against whatever it is that he wants to over-capitalize in a particular subject area.

Randy Kryn's approach is obviously the diametric opposite of objective, and he over and over again fails to gain consensus for what he wants on a article-by-article or across-a-category basis (yet recycles the failed arguments at each new routine RM that he turns into a battleground, a very long-term WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:DROPTHESTICK problem and to some extent a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#FORUM one). Ergo, the community clearly doesn't even consider what he wants a subjective improvement (e.g. perhaps a rationale to adjust what the guidelines say). If, over the course of a decade or so, one is getting no traction in establishing a change one would like to impose, then it is long past time to stop. That he sometimes finds an over-capitalizing ally on some particular subject who will "me too" with him to mis-invoke IAR doesn't magically make IAR invoked properly. (Especially when there's an observable WP:SSF pattern of trying to get "my topic is mystically different from all others" exceptions, commingled with a bordering-on-hounding statistical trend of particular editors following around a particular RM nominator, Dicklyon, to oppose virtually everything he does simply because they don't like him and can't mount convincing arguments against his RS evidence (in most cases). This is essentially extremist wiki-political party formation, not encyclopedia work.)

Ignorning our guidelines and 20-odd years of RM results (cf. WP:CONSISTENT policy) to give Randy Kryn the excessive capitalization he desires in this and innumerable other topics, simply on a bogus "IAR applies any time I'm not getting my capitalizing way", would in no way objectively improve or maintain the encyclopedia, but would have the exact opposite effect (we know this because his incessant failed attempts to get what he wants are already having palpable and long-term negative impact). It would: 1) sow reader confusion about why Wikipedia is capitaling things that are given lower-case by most or all of the cited sources (and thereby make Wikipedia seem less reliable and neutral); and 2) inspire our handful of "capitals or else" gadflies to relitigate anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of previous lower-case decisions; which would 3) amount to several years of pointless, time-sucking, editorial-goodwill-draining repetitive argument over trivia that virtually no one really cares about; and 4) produce chaos-inducing levels of editorial confusion (likely long-term harmful to the project's ability to function) about what the rules are/mean, what a rule is, when rules can ever even be applied, whether the community even has the ability to examine and override subjective preferences of topic-devoted editors, etc.

What's at stake here – as with all of this tilting-at-windmills behavior by Randy Kryn and his anticompliance sometime-allies on particular topics, exemplified by their unbelievably disruptive behavior at the "NFL draft" RfC and their failed relitigation of it at AN, among many other less high-profile cases – is not whether some particular word has a capital letter at the front of it on some specific article, It's whether WP's WP:CONLEVEL, WP:OWN, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV policies matter, whether objective source-based requirements in our guidelines (i.e. guidelines being based on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR instead of subjective whim) matter, and whether it is possible for WP to even have a style guide at all rather than simply letting wikiprojects (or even over-involved individual editors) totally control articles they "claim", to stylize to their hearts' content in unencyclopedic, non-neutral, source-defying, reader-confusing ways. Randy Kryn has not been the first to pursue such a "style war" (including with regard to capitalization in particular), but the community brought previous antics of this sort to an end for good reason, and the current outbreak of it, spearhead by Kryn, already should have stopped long ago. The severe NOTGETTINGIT problems of Kryn and a couple of others are why it has not.

PS: Kryn's IAR shtick here is mindbogglingly hypocritical and manipulative anyway. See the aforementioned "NFL draft" RfC (and the VPPOL threads that spawned it, and AN follow-up), about which Kryn extensively canvassed (as diffed in detail at that RfC) on a platform that the RfC was "illegitimate" because in his view it wasn't following a particular rule. He not only would brook no argument against the rule or his personal (and demonstrably incorrect) interpretation of it – IAR simply did not exist for him in this matter – the specific goal of his weeks of canvassing, which should have resulted in a block and topic-ban, was to deny the broader community the ability to scrutinize the alleged "local consensus" of and sourcing claims relied upon (subsequently disproved) by a particular gaggle of editors at sports wikiprojects. Rules only matter to Kryn when they help him get some WP:WINNING. If it's intentional, then this is one of the forms of WP:Gaming the system (his specific approach to this triggers at least 4 of the 5 points under "Gaming the use of policies and guidelines"). If it's not intentional and he just can't understand this is what he's doing, then this is a major WP:COMPETENCE problem, an inability or refusal to internalize how WP community, policy, and process actually operate. The only reason I did not long ago open an ArbCom case to have Randy Kryn T-banned from capitalization disputes and maybe from RM and MoS entirely is that the stress of such drama exceeds my tolerance levels. But if he continues in this vein, I predict that result is inevitable, because the disruption he repetitively generates, in pursuit of the same community-rejected aims, is setting off red flags among other editors for some time now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's try the obvious again. WP:IAR reads "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Very clear language. Some editors want to personally interpret or complicate it when discussing it by adding words and meanings that are just not there. In an effort to fit it into a smaller box they, as in the above comment, try to beat down the bringer of good news. Well, no, the treasured policy is just as it says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
In order to maintain Wikipedia the rule to be ignored here is the controversial guideline that lowercases anything not uppercased in approx. 80% of sources. This case has to do with the proper names of Earth's largest named multiple features, its tectonic plates. These massive objects have been correctly uppercased on Wikipedia since articles were written about them. Almost every prominent feature of the plates are uppercased: mountain ranges, oceans, rivers, cities, national monuments and parks, valleys, on and on. The only thing that will not have a proper name if the downsizers get their way are the plates themselves. This is counter-intuitive enough to invoke IAR per the instruction given editors at the top of every guideline: "some commonsense exceptions may apply". Arguing that keeping the names of the tectonic plates uppercased is not disruptive, nor is it any of the other WikiSins that you often accuse me of in the most uncivil language (that's fine, I have a thick skin, as do the tectonic plates). Many editors at the discussion are opposed to the lowercasing, not just two or three. Within that discussion, IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, and "occasional exceptions may apply" seem to fit like a glove. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Gypsy until a consensus is reached. Bug Ghost🦗👻 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Hykeham for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hykeham 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/Hykeham 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.

Elemimele (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru/Archive_36&oldid=1256804096"