User talk:Swpb/Archive/2023

Happy New Year, Swpb!

Happy New Year!

Swpb,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article for 2022 United States infant formula shortage

Hello! As you are one of the prominent editor in 2022 United States infant formula shortage I am looking for your input on this matter. I plan to nominate this article for GA status and I am looking for your opinion. What do you think? Thank you very much! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. I can't promise I'll be available to help, but I'll try. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding references

Hi swpb, please add a source when you add (possibly controversial) information to articles. Cheers, Jack (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd pasted the references from the parent article but I obviously forgot. Fixed. Gracious of you to message me before removing! —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Recreational drug use in animals

On 15 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Recreational drug use in animals, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that black lemurs use toxic millipede secretions as insect repellent, and apparently enjoy their narcotic effect? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Recreational drug use in animals. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Recreational drug use in animals), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Geological Society of Glasgow.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Geological Society of Glasgow.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians interested in health and hygiene has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Comma after year

MOS:DATE says "A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it: The weather on March 12, 2005, was clear and warm." Please do not remove such commas. Chris the speller ^yack 13:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The instruction "A comma doesn't follow the year unless otherwise required by context" applies to DMY-format dates, as in "2 September 2001". The instruction ""A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it" applies to MDY-format dates, which is where I added the commas. Please put the commas back. Chris the speller ^yack 16:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Image needed template

Hi, I saw you were one of the main contributors to the {{Photo requested}} template. I'm new to templates so was hoping you could help me with something. Specifically, adding a parameter for satellite images and adding a category for Satellite images requested. I've been uploading a lot of Sentinel-2 satellite images recently and I'd be nice to have a category for requests. I'm also sending this message to Xaosflux. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 12:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There is an undocumented parameter of {{photo requested}}, "1o", that puts pages in the category "Wikipedia requested {{{1o}}} photographs". So e.g., {{photo requested|1o=satellite}} will place the page in Category:Wikipedia requested satellite photographs (which I would create as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of places). I assume there's no reason to further categorize by location.

If you want to make it easy for other people to make similar requests, you could either 1) add documentation of the 1o parameter to Template:Photo requested/doc, and/or 2) make a separate meta-template, e.g. {{satellite photo requested}}, that just contains:

{{photo requested|1o=satellite|of=this site from space}}

—swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 19:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Disamb

Hi, about this, "cited in art" aboviously meant the article itself. Not sure why an extremely high-bar would be needed, I don't see the same criteria being applied to Beyoncé (not mentioned in the article, besides 'Bee') or B, member of Superorganism (band). Either the application of the selective criteria should be holistic or entries allowed per the others. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing obvious about it, since 1) "art" is a word that applies to actors, and not a standardized abbreviation for "article", and 2) it ISN'T cited, or mentioned, or anything, in the article, that she's called simply "B". I don't intend to play WP:WHATABOUT and I'm not defending any other entries, but I know for a fact that Beyoncé is sometimes called "B", and that Beyoncé is one of the most famous musicians alive; I don't know that about this Indian actress. You're welcome to add evidence for either to the article, but even then I don't think this person is significant enough to justify placement on the dab page for the second letter of most of the world's alphabets. Meaning, the clutter of the added entry causes more harm to readers looking for other topics than it helps the improbable hypothetical reader hoping to learn about this actress by just typing "B" in the search bar. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, in that case a List of people named B or B (nickname) might be in order haha; anyhow I did cite the "B" part in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait, it's one of six nicknames for her? Is there evidence anyone even uses it? As is, I don't think this would even be justifiable on a nicknames page. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 18:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article, second appearance, for 10 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, inntroduced (in 2017): "This is my first FA nomination, and what I think is a rather interesting topic. The article has had a peer review by User:Dunkleosteus, and a thorough mentor review by User:Brianboulton."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of aircraft

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of aircraft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of airports

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of airports indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

A rotating ovipositor

Just today in the New York Times in this story. (Subscription might be required if you're past your monthly limit.) Maybe merits a mention at Rotating locomotion in living systems. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think it belongs in this wiki article. The NYT says it rotates back and forth, not continuously in one direction, so there is no suggestion of it being "free" rotation, i.e. with unlimited range of motion. In that sense, it's no different from a human forearm. I think if we start mentioning things that give the casual appearance of free rotation without actually being such, it will detract from the article's focus. Definitely good information to add to ovipositor, though. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 17:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about John E. Warriner

Hello Swpb, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, John E. Warriner, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Warriner.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Chris troutman}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: The user you want to notify is Melchior2006. They wrote the article per se; I just created a redirect. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 18:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry; the page curation script fires off this message automatically and I forget sometimes to fix cases like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Double disambiguation

I think the advice you added to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Double disambiguation is very sensible, but I don't think it reflects current practice. Few pages use {{Transclude list}}; a wikilink via Subpage (disambiguation) is normal rather than exceptional. This situation can and probably should change, but are we at the stage where we can present it in a guideline? Certes (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

True, transclusion is not a common practice, but there seems to be agreement that it should be (where secondary dabs are appropriate in the first place). There's always room for more discussion, but what I added didn't seem controversial, especially since it leaves the page-size decision points to editorial discretion. So until there's a substantive disagreement with it, I figure it should stay. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see Bkonrad already removed most of it. Back to the Talk page we go. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)