User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 75
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
Talkback
Message added 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I would be interested in hearing as to why they ought not qualify:-) ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I saw, but I have no desire to further the battleground mentality that is currently being fed at that discussion. All it's doing is feeding into both editors feeling of persecution and dropping it would be a better route so that they can do the correct thing in the future - which is discuss on the talk page rather than battling it out through edit summaries and ANI reports. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- As for bare urls - the usual definition is one that the DYK process uses - Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, specifically D3. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing. - checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- paid-en-wp
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
AQHA Hall of Fame changed again
Hi Ealdgyth! Hope all is well. It only seems like a couple years ago I know. I was looking something up when I noticed broken links to the Hall of Fame. They have redesigned it again. All of the hall of fame horses and people have broken links for their individual profile pages on the AQHA site. I found the new site although it took a bit as it was not exactly intuitive to locate. Anyway, I am happy to fix it for you again, but there is one issue. The URL for the page is huge. Perhaps you can help me with that? Plus, I wanted to have the links, you know FYI for the start pages. And the 2019 horses have been announced.
- New start page for Hall of Fame horses: [1]
- New start page for Hall of fame humans: [2]
- 2019 horse inductees announcement: [3]
And so with the new link, I use Barbara L as an example:
Barbara L existing link: Barbara L: [4]
New link [5]
dawnleelynn(talk) 18:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
1911 Encyclopædia Britannica as a source
Hi Ealdgyth, I saw you reverted the edit made to Battle of Hastings because it cited EB1911. Should we not use that as a source any more? Is there a discussion somewhere about the decision? If it's been decided that EB1911 shouldn't be used, there's a lot of work for someone to remove it from the 19,046 articles here: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference and the 11,443 articles here: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. — DivermanAU (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't just delete it because it cited the 1911 EB. I deleted it because it wasn't needed in the lead because the information is sourced in the article body. THAT was the primary reason. An ancillary reason was that the 1911 EB is out of date in historical scholarship on this subject - you only need to see the bibliography of the Battle of Hastings article to see that there are a number of much more recent works used for that article. There is no reason to cite something from 1911 when there are plenty of current works that were published within the last 30 years or so. In general, for most subjects, yes, the 1911 EB is outdated and shouldn't be cited - whether that subject is history, science, medicine, etc. We wouldn't cite the 1911 EB for information on cancer, would we? So why would we on something else, like history? It's just as outdated for history as it would be for medicine. As to other articles using it - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that other articles cite it has no bearing on whether that's good practice - it's not. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
History
I read your recent comment.The fact is that Wikipedia attracts polarizing views and often people who are personally engaged or emotionally engaged in the subject. The reality outside of Wikipedia is often different, and there are more nuanced viewpoints.We often have articles dominated by very strong but niche viewpoints who don't actually resemble the general debate or views.When you are editing articles where there are strong opposite views presented for sources you can get the impression that there is conflict, while in research outside wikipedia such conflicts are between two very niche groups, and the mainstream research is usually more balanced.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am actually pretty aware of the various contentious areas of history - I can hardly be unaware if I edit in the Holocaust area. One thing that would really help is if you could start actually trying to learn from the edits I'm having to make to correct your edits. There need to be spaces between sentences. Sentences end with periods. Refs go AFTER punctuation. Use a spell checker. Put all the citation information into a citation when you add it. It gets really really old to continually have to make these corrections - it isn't the job of other editors to fix mistakes that have continually been pointed out in edit summaries to you - you need to learn them and do them yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Haaretz paywall
Technical tip (here, since off topic on the articls) - it is not much of a wall (on purpose), ignoring the shady ways around it, the following two are legit: (and work on some other site as well)
- Open a different browser (explorer \ firefox \ chrome) - the limitation is per browser.
- Search for the article title, and the click on the google result. They restrict google referrals much less than direct links or browsing inside their site (becuase they want traffic from search results).
There are other ways I won't list here, but the two above work for Haaretz presently. FYI, and sorry if I repeat the obvious.Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Titles of references
Hi, titles of references should be given 1:1. If a website chooses to capitalize "In" but not "on" that is up to them - we copy that when referencing it. Please don't change titles like this. --mfb (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think I'd like to see the guideline on that, please. I checked WP:CITE and it doesn't have anything addressing that issue. I also checked WP:EL to see what it says - and it doesn't address that issue either. However, our WP:MOS does have some guidance - seeMOS:TITLE, which details how to refer to titles of things, and says that we should use title case for titles of works - which I would assume to apply to titles in citations as well as in the article body. Tangental - see MOS:ALLCAPS, which specifically says to convert titles of links from all capitals to title case, which would imply that we should do so in similar cases, such as when things are overcapitalized. @SMcCandlish: - you have any advice? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:TITLE covers how to reference titles of things in the article text and most examples are other Wikipedia articles, it doesn't seem to deal with references. Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't discuss it. I expect this to be covered by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Original_wording but there is also the simple concept of "reference things by their title, not by something else". An exception is made for all caps only because all caps is annoying. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- We do normalize to a consistent form of title case (see MOS:5LETTERRULE in particular). The assumption that if someone's book's cover says "ON THE LAM" that we're going to write it that way on WP is false. An RfC a couple of months ago agreed to a very narrow partial exception, to help keep the peace (primarily about song titles): if a four-letter word that is often not a preposition (this is mostly about like and past) is used as a preposition in a title, and the vast majority of independent reliable sources, regardless of writing genre, capitalize that word in the title of that specific work, then capitalize it on Wikipedia. E.g., we have the article at "Dude (Looks Like a Lady)" instead of "Dude (Looks like a Lady)", a redirect (we also redirect from "Dude (Looks Like A Lady)", the exact cover typography). This doesn't apply to common short prepositions like in or from, only to four-letter one that are most often not prepositions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:TITLE covers how to reference titles of things in the article text and most examples are other Wikipedia articles, it doesn't seem to deal with references. Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't discuss it. I expect this to be covered by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Original_wording but there is also the simple concept of "reference things by their title, not by something else". An exception is made for all caps only because all caps is annoying. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, this is Dank's edited blurb, so you'll only need to chop off the "recently featured". I hope that helps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
|
|
Technical news
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
Miscellaneous
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Flagicons in predecessor/successor
Why are you removing the flagicons in this section? the MOS:FLAGICON seem to refer to, for example, "Nationality: 
German" and stuff like that, the predecessor/successor section is totally fine/"uncontroversial" to include flags (since its referring to countries with flags) and even has a built-in function to show them and link them, unlike my example above. Please stop removing them --Havsjö (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just because an infobox has a field, does not make that field conform to the MOS. MOS:FLAGICON - "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many" and "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" and lastly "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes" - but note the "MAY" and the "first level" - I hardly think that covers things like historical flags. And in any case - the first two quotes I have highlighted certainly are important here - they have as much importance as anything else. Do not worry - I don't plan to edit war over this - but I've removed those types of flags quite often, and only rarely run into people who object. In those cases, I usually just let them revert... figuring someone else will remove them later as precedent is very much on the side of removing them, rather than having them. @SMcCandlish: and @Tony1: - you two MOS-mavens have input? ([https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Thirteen_Colonies&oldid=prev&diff=892182041&diffmode=source this is the revert of my edit, by the way). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, those two flag icons were not just distracting visual noise, they were downright visually confusing, because the template is mis-coded and they do not align properly. The template should not have parameters for this, because doing it is non-guideline-compliant, even if someone actually knew how to use CSS properly. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Raising this at WT:MOSICONS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, thank you Ealdgyth. Rather unwillingly, we put up with flag icons in tables within sports articles, though when I see that every single flag is of one country, I really do wonder. And for heaven's sake, do coaches and sports bosses need a flag icon??? In infoboxes, space is short and these pretty, sometimes gaudy icons clutter things up and distract. Often they don't even align properly with the text. God knows how they display on a mobile device monitor. Often the country-name is not displayed, so we rely on readers' knowing that they need to hover their mouse over the icon to find out. Is it Australia or New Zealand? The flags are almost identical. And at the end of the day, as the guidelines say, do we need to emphasise nationality in this way? Minimise, I say. Tony (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Convoys
Re your recent edits to SS Fort Stikine, please be aware that convoy designators are all capitals, and that there is no space between a convoy number and any suffix. Thus "Convoy OS 69KM", not "Convoy OS 69 km". Ive made the necessary connections to the article. Best, Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hm... that's using User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral - I'll bear the convoy bits in mind in future - but you may want to drop Ohconfucius a note so the script can be altered also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Or ping @Ohconfucius:... Mjroots (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Re: this, it was promoted yesterday. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yet another article to think the worst of. Tony (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Adalbert of Magdeburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Christian
- Altiplano Cundiboyacense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Columbia
- Council of Hatfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Christian
- Galla Placidia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Christian
- Milo (bishop of Trier) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Christian
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Skowronek
Moved to Talk:Skowronek (horse)Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
AQHA website redesign
Hi Ealdgyth. I had some time today, so I played around with that long URL for the AQHA hall of fame a bit. I found that if you only use the first bit of it up to the horse's name and with the ? mark, it works. You don't need all the rest of that nonsense. I was able to update Baby Doll Combs article successfully. Here's what I used: [6] Much shorter.
That's the good news. The not so good news is that all of AQHA seems to be redesigned and the links for AQHA need updated for all of their articles, not just the hall of fame. Well, anyway, I wanted to update the two rodeo horses who were also AQHA hall of fame members to see if I could. I think some sort of strategy to update the AQHA links might be needed. For example, I am working on how to update rodeo articles as the Professional Bull Riders and the ProBullStats web sites have both redesigned their websites and that's 100s of links in Wikipedia. Not to mention how they have broken all my links in my social media accounts, email, and bookmarks, etc. Such fun! Still working on Make It Do. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:
Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.
Other notable performances were put in by 
Barkeep49 with six GAs, 
Ceranthor, 
Lee Vilenski, and 
Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 
MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Awesome user page
|
The Userpage Barnstar | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your classy and engrossing user page. I am sure that I am only one of very many who have spent an enjoyable half hour browsing through it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2019 special circular
 |
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)