User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2013/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ErrantX. 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. |
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
- News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
- Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war
- WikiProject report: U2 Too
Congratulations!
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's good article, Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period July-September 2013, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans
- WikiProject report: Australian Roads
- Featured content: Under the sea
- News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
- In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
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.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
- News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
- Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri
- WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology
- Featured content: That's a lot of pictures
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes
- Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 October 2013
- News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community
- Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish
- Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia
- Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
- In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Elements of the world
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of the Nimrod_(programming_language) article.
You have deleted the Nimrod (Programming Language) article based on CSD G4. While the article was a recreation of an article which was deleted per a deletion discussion, further modifications have added citations which deserved a reevaluation of that decision. Is this irrelevant per the rules of Wikipedia or have you simply not noticed these changes? dom96 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just noticed your reply on HN. I suppose that answers my question. dom96 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did look over those changes, however to qualify for an exemption to G4 deletion criteria the content must either show significant differences to the original content, or address the issues raised at AFD for which the community agreed on deletion. In this case the additions did not sufficiently meet those requirements. However, of course, I'd be happy for you to request a review of the deletion as other admins might have a different view! I'm trying to put together a programming wiki as we speak, so hopefully these languages will have a place to go! Stay tuned :) --Errant (chat!) 09:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. I think jimktrains2 on HN raises some good points. What consistitutes a good source for a programming language? I know all about Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the Go (programming language) article is filled with sources to its own webpage and sources like blog posts. Why can't blog posts about Nimrod by programmers independentent of the project be considered a reliable source for Nimrod when they are for Go? Perhaps a review of deletion would be appropriate, would you recommend it? As for your programming wiki how will it differ from what is already out there, i.e. Rosetta Code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom96 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Blogs are difficult; how do you establish their independence? Their accuracy (because the key aspect of a reliable source is the idea of editorial control)? The authority of the writer? It's hard! I think certainly some blog posts would be a reasonable source for programming languages - as an example Tech Crunch is a blog, and often unreliable, but has been discussed and agreed a reasonable source in certain situations for certain topics (for example, technology news/opinion). You're one stage too far along in the process - what needs to happen first is for those guidelines to be established and then the content can be brought in. As I said, please do feel free to get the deletion reviewed - however I'm 99% confident that any other administrator, and the rest of the community, will agree G4 criteria was met. It's fairly clear cut. --Errant (chat!) 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, fair enough. Hopefully it won't take long for Nimrod to become notable enough :). In any case, thanks for the info. Let me know when this programming wiki of yours is live please. dom96 (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with saying "fair enough" to this. Work on the page in question was ongoing (I know, I was one of the ones involved) and it should not have been deleted, at least not under the G4 rule. Additionally, it's not sufficient to simply keep trotting out the tired old canard that "blogs aren't reputable sources". I'm sorry, but context matters, and in the programming world, blog discussions, forum discussions (among other things) do make things notable. We have to find a way, as Wikipedians, to acknowledge and incorporate this. Sprhodes (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Blogs are difficult; how do you establish their independence? Their accuracy (because the key aspect of a reliable source is the idea of editorial control)? The authority of the writer? It's hard! I think certainly some blog posts would be a reasonable source for programming languages - as an example Tech Crunch is a blog, and often unreliable, but has been discussed and agreed a reasonable source in certain situations for certain topics (for example, technology news/opinion). You're one stage too far along in the process - what needs to happen first is for those guidelines to be established and then the content can be brought in. As I said, please do feel free to get the deletion reviewed - however I'm 99% confident that any other administrator, and the rest of the community, will agree G4 criteria was met. It's fairly clear cut. --Errant (chat!) 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. I think jimktrains2 on HN raises some good points. What consistitutes a good source for a programming language? I know all about Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the Go (programming language) article is filled with sources to its own webpage and sources like blog posts. Why can't blog posts about Nimrod by programmers independentent of the project be considered a reliable source for Nimrod when they are for Go? Perhaps a review of deletion would be appropriate, would you recommend it? As for your programming wiki how will it differ from what is already out there, i.e. Rosetta Code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom96 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did look over those changes, however to qualify for an exemption to G4 deletion criteria the content must either show significant differences to the original content, or address the issues raised at AFD for which the community agreed on deletion. In this case the additions did not sufficiently meet those requirements. However, of course, I'd be happy for you to request a review of the deletion as other admins might have a different view! I'm trying to put together a programming wiki as we speak, so hopefully these languages will have a place to go! Stay tuned :) --Errant (chat!) 09:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)