Jump to content

User talk:Sdkb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jmg38 (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 3 December 2024 (→Rotten Tomatoes and Wikidata: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from RICHAOBO1 (10:17, 27 August 2024)

Hi Sdkb, what's your best advice for someone who's new here and wants to learn how to edit and publish new articles? --RICHAOBO1 (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is not to start with creating new articles; go build up some experience with other tasks first. Then, when you're ready, read Help:Your first article and follow its advice, particularly about sourcing. Cheers, Sdkb talk 13:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox musical artist

Heya, I saw you added pluralisation control to the instrument parameter of Template:Infobox musical artist. Would you be able to do the same for occupation, spouse and partner? Miklogfeather (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miklogfeather,  Done here; please let me know if there are any issues! Cheers, Sdkb talk 19:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston meetups?

Hi Sdkb! I remember coming across your RfA previously and wanted to offer a belated congrats for successfully passing :)

I'm writing because I was browsing Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston and have noticed your name come up fairly often in recent meetups. Do you happen to still be in the area? I was interested in potentially attending/organizing one as there hasn't been a single in-person meetup in the region this year to my knowledge. I managed to catch the tail end of one nearly a decade ago but the opportunity has eluded me since. I'm close by and my schedule is relatively flexible for the coming months, and I'd love to meet some other contributors in the area. Would you happen to have any insight into what goes into organizing one of these (room reservation process, etc)? Appreciate it! ~Liancetalk 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liance; thank you! I'm not in the Boston area most of the year (although I will be at WikiConference North America in Indianapolis in a few weeks), but best wishes with arranging a meetup! Sdkb talk 19:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply! I'll reach out to some other editors who might be in the area. Perhaps our paths will cross sometime in the future. Best, ~Liancetalk 23:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template spam reform idea

Hi there Sdkb, I'm toying with a proposal to reduce template spam, which perhaps you could comment on. My idea is that any template includes "discuss the issue" or "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" can be removed by any editor, if there was never a discussion begun on the talk page about such issues. In my mind, other editors can't be expected to read the mind of drive-by templaters, and it's not their responsibility to do so. Additionally, if the templater can't be bothered to even give one sentence on the talk page, that's on them.

I've found myself frequently removing templates undersuch rationales, see here most recently.

Examples of such templates include {{Original research}} & {{Too few opinions}}, among many others. How does it sound? Aza24 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just saw a comment from you a few years back at Template talk:GANotice#Linking to the assessment subpage. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but given that we have a new bot & operator, perhaps this could be easily implemented now. Aza24 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aza24! So sorry for the delayed reply here! On template spam, I think such reform would have to be worded carefully. For some maintenance templates, the issue is fairly obvious to any other experienced editor, so a message on the talk page wouldn't add much additional information. If anyone doesn't understand why a template was added, I think they should always be free to remove it, but I wouldn't want any reform to give carte blanche permission for people to start going around removing maintenance templates en masse/semi-automated, since my sense is that most such templates tend to point to valid issues. The more common cause of template spam that I come across is that an article is tagged with both major and minor issues, and the minor issues add up to spam. One way to try to address that would be to try come up with pairs of related maintenance templates, where we can agree that if an article is tagged with one, that covers the other, making it unneeded. The secondary one could then be removed through an AWB task.
I think I also have a slightly different philosophical view about the level of responsibility taggers have. When one comes across a deficiency in an article, we could say the three actions available are just tagging it, tagging and adding a talk page message, and directly resolving it. Directly resolving it (presuming one has the skills to do so) is obviously the best but also most time-consuming option. Adding a maintenance tag, on the other hand, does less to help but is super quick. They're therefore often used when someone notices an issue but isn't invested enough in the article (or just doesn't have the time) to actually resolve it. Requiring that maintenance tags always be accompanied with a talk page message, which has to be composed by hand, would substantially increase the time it takes to add them, and therefore might push some editors to just not bother and leave the article untagged.
The last thing that comes to mind on the template spam issue is that we need to do a better job specializing our messaging for readers vs. editors. Deficiencies like insufficient references are relevant for readers and properly belong as a notice for them on the article, but a lot of yellow-colored (style issue) maintenance tags are not, and are relevant only for editors. Those would more properly be displayed in editnotices rather than banners. We already recognize this issue a little bit in e.g. {{Orphan}} not displaying after a few months, but if I was going to get more involved in this area, converting some banners to a new type of editnotice (and having tools like Twinkle be able to handle this, which might be difficult given the current template-protection editnotices need to have for technical reasons) would be an initiative I'd take on.
Cheers, Sdkb talk 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding {{GANotice}}, I was referring to the fact that many forms of the notice currently don't link to the specific nomination page for the GA, e.g. Talk:F. Andrieu/GA1. It looks like there is a parameter that allows for that in some (it seems not all?) forms of the notice, but in practice it seems never to be used (or at least didn't at the time I wrote that message) because the notice is typically delivered by bot.
I think it might be possible to create a template that takes as input an article and returns the link to the GA nomination page where it passed, but it might be easier to address on the bot operator's side. Feel free to ping the new operator and perhaps they can look into it!
Cheers, Sdkb talk 18:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Larry0909 (00:25, 10 September 2024)

Where is the little picture of a magnifying glass to click on to enter an item to locate and read? --Larry0909 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are searching for the search bar, try zooming out on your browser. win8x (talking | spying) 20:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Larry0909 Pinging because I forgot :) win8x (talking | spying) 20:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She remembers

Last year, you wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media#How_to_get_divorced_on_Wikipedia. Apparently, there are no hard feelings:[1] (last question). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some closing expertise

Hey, Sdkb! I'm looking to get the gears turning on the admin recall RfC, but a lot of the sections have been sitting open for a while. Since I know you have experience with RfC closes, would you be willing to help close a few sections? It looks like we won't be going right to implementation from there, so the closes are mainly advisory – helps in putting together the next discussion (fingers crossed!). Thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:If this year

Template:If this year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooooooookiezzzzzzzz

Cookies!

ButterNoodle has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

The remains
ButterNoodle, yum! Thank you! Sdkb talk 06:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A racecar for you!

A racecar for you!
Great seeing you again at WCNA! Your talk made me feel the urge to get back into copyediting FACs (though I'm scared of how much the whole FA process may have changed since I was last doing that, uh... ten years ago... @_@) Anyway, till next time IRL and in the meantime, see you round the wikis! Accedietalk to me 16:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Accedie! Good luck with any FACs you launch! Sdkb talk 17:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

I want to thank you for your lecture on article quality degradation at WCNA. I dare say it was the most interesting and useful talk of the whole conference.

—Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's high praise, Compassionate727; thank you! (For any talk page stalkers, the presentation slides, based off my essay WP:ENDURE, are here, and the audio will be up soon once they process it.) Sdkb talk 17:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barncompass for you!

WikiConference North America 2024 Barncompass
Thank you for successfully completing all 13 tasks in the 2024 edition of the Editing Challenge! We hope you continue to contribute towards different sister projects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, OhanaUnited! I had noticed in the closing session that you listed me as only having completed some of the tasks, so I was wondering where I had been disqualified; I guess this means I actually wasn't disqualified after all? Sdkb talk 17:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was in a hurry and might have missed some things (or that I only saw some of your tasks being marked as complete when I was creating the slides, and you subsequently updated the table). OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OhanaUnited, I updated the table just before the noon deadline that was announced. No worries — it was indeed a tight timeline! For next year, it might make sense to announce an earlier deadline, so that you can be sure to consider all the contributions submitted by then. Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was updating it around noon. Probably it was still using an outdated cache on my laptop so it didn't show your 13 completed tasks. I'll mark that as a to-do item next year. The time crunch was definitely difficult to manage since we had to hand out a physical prize (rather than just virtual). OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Growth News, October 2024

Current work

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We will add a new module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version on beta wikis and we will soon start an A/B test on our pilot wikis. This module will only display on the Newcomer Homepage if communities decide to utilize it, so learn how to configure the Community Updates module, or share your thoughts on the project's talk page.

One design concept aimed to increase constructive activation

Constructive activation experimentation

After showcasing early design ideas at Wikimania, we conducted user testing of design prototypes. We now aim to engage communities in further discussions and plan to run a targeted experiment, presenting a structured task within the reading view to logged-in new account holders with zero edits.

Community Configuration

This Community Configuration extension was developed to help communities customize wiki features to meet their unique needs. The Growth team is now helping other Wikimedia Foundation teams make their products configurable:

  • The Moderation Tools team now provides Community Configuration for Automoderator. (T365046)
  • Certain Babel extension settings will be configurable soon. (T328171)

Future work

As part of the Growth team annual plan, we will continue to investigate ways to increase constructive activation on mobile, while also working with Data Products to move forward A/B testing functionality via the Metrics Platform.

Community events

  • Growth team members presented Community Configuration: Shaping On-Wiki Functionality Together at Wikimania (slides). The session recording is available to watch on YouTube. This session provided an update on the Community Configuration project and introduced details about the upcoming features that communities will soon be able to configure. Representatives from the Moderator Tools, Editing, Web, and Campaigns teams shared their plans for utilizing Community Configuration in the future. Following these presentations, the WMF Growth team's Benoît Evellin and Martin Urbanec answered audience questions.
  • Habib Mhenni gave a presentation of how mentorship works at WikiIndaba 2024. The recording is available.

Stay informed

Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Trizek_(WMF), 15:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Question from Germitage (01:55, 25 October 2024)

I am glad to have a mentor, and hope you're not an AI. I was reading the wikipedia article on Alfred Orage, and found a few items in the article that I thought I could illuminate with material from my own library and researches. It was surprising how many paths that led me down, and the limitations that Google search still has (i.e., I was able to find information it had not incorporated into its dataset, and I'm by no means a search expert.) Anyway, I added my discoveries to the best of my ability to the Talk page for this article. I don't like to concept of me being able to edit an article live any more than I think a writer should be published just because he wants to be. I am hoping that my information makes for a more accurate and interesting article. Incidentally, in the box at the beginning about improving the article it suggests that a photo be added, but the article does have one...can I suggest that suggestion be corrected? Well, thanks for reading this if you have and please feel free to write me back at any time. Germitage --Germitage (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Germitage! I'm not an AI (at least that I'm aware...). Thanks for contributing your knowledge to Talk:Alfred Richard Orage and hope you stick around to make more contributions elsewhere!
I've removed the image request from the talk page. It was asking for a freely licensed image, whereas the one there now is fair use, but for a historical figure it's unlikely that anyone will be able to fulfill such a request (you can't go take a picture of a deceased person the same way you can a building...) so it wasn't doing much good.
Regarding the information about him, Wikipedia foundationally aims to be a tertiary source compiling the information found in secondary sources like newspapers and books. As such, we do not accept original research that has not been published elsewhere. That may somewhat limit what would be appropriate to contribute to the article at this point. But to the extent you can find sources that back up the information you'd like to add, we encourage you to be bold and add it! That article is currently assessed as C-class, so there is lots of room for improvement!
Cheers, Sdkb talk 03:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your helpful information. I think I can document all the comments I made in the talk page from published (even if not easily available) sources. The main thing I worry about is "where to stop" :)
For instance, the article mentions that Orage's gravestone has an Enneagram on it. I found three sources that confirm that: a mention of it in his biography, a description of the gravestone from the website of the churchyard where he's buried, showing a drawing of the enneagram, and a photo of the gravestone found on a site called findagrave.com. It seems like overkill to provide all those sources, but I don't have any reason to include one than another. I don't even know if it's permitted to include the findagrave link.
Also, the current text states that his disciples paid for the creation of the gravestone, but none of my sources corroborate that.
Anyway, I feel a little guilty to include all this, but since you answered my last question, I thought I'd ask this.
Maybe I should just go ahead and put all the stuff I found into the appropriate places in the article, and see what other editors decide is appropriate. I am perfectly willing to accept the decision of editors; in any case, I assume all my wonderful work, even if not used, will always be stashed away in the talk page. Germitage (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Germitage, good questions! First, on "where to stop", the guiding principles for what information to include or not include in an article are WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Basically, information that has been discussed by reliable sources can be included in a concise manner. The definition of a reliable source can be complex, but Find A Grave would not be considered reliable because it contains user-generated content. In general, I would include only the highest-quality source(s) for a piece of information that are available — the goal is always to ensure that facts are verifiable, so if e.g. there's an NYT feature available, no need to include anything else.
Regarding the current text, is there a citation for that fact? If so, you can check whether it corroborates it. If so, we're good. If there is but it doesn't, you could add the {{failed verification}} tag to the sentence (let me know if you need help doing so) or just remove the fact entirely if you suspect it is false. If there's no citation, the typical steps are to either remove it (again, best to do this when you suspect it's false) or tag it with {{citation needed}} (although in this case, I wouldn't do that since the orange tag at the top of the article covers that, and we don't want to tag bomb).
Regarding the last question, yes, I'd definitely encourage you to be bold and edit the article directly! The revision history is stored permanently, so if you accidentally mess anything up it'll be easy for others to fix it.
Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator election votes

Hi talk page stalkers! I'm casting my votes in the administrator elections, and in the spirit of Wikipedian transparency (and experimenting with RfA dynamics) I figured I'd disclose how I'm voting.

Some process notes: I spent roughly 1-2 hr. making my choices. I relied on a mixture of information in candidate guides, the statements/questions/discussion on nomination pages, and (in a few cases) my own impressions of the candidate from past interactions. If you do the math with the timing, you'll see that it doesn't work out to much time per candidate, so in some cases snap judgements/cursory looks were involved. Therefore, no one should take my choices to carry much weight as an (anti-)endorsement (unlike my normal RfA !votes, where I tend not to weigh in unless I have a strong view I'll stand behind). I chose not to make any abstentions, since (unlike RfA neutrals) those don't have any impact.

Overall, I think I was somewhat tougher than I would be at a normal RfA, both to compensate for the fact that they are receiving less scrutiny than normal candidates (and thus small observed issues may hint at larger missed ones) and because the culture of AEC seems to involve fewer nominators who might have caught issues in vetting. (Some advice for candidates: Run with nominators! Their endorsement will help you, and you'll avoid giving the impression that you don't have them because no one was willing.) Some issues that I'd probably have been able to overlook at a normal RfA, such as a lack of quality content nominations, therefore became WP:NOTQUITEYET dealbreakers here.

If anyone wants to know why I voted a particular way on a particular candidate, I'll be happy to discuss if I can remember. I'm also open to being persuaded if anyone wants to convince me I'm wrong about a candidate and should revote (I view dialogue with you all, who I probably trust more than the average Wikipedian, as a step in the process to help me catch instances where I might be voting differently than I would had I done more thorough vetting). With that preamble done, my votes:

Candidate My vote % outcome
Ahecht Yes 76.32%
AntiDionysius Yes 64.75%
Bastun No 51.24%
DoubleGrazing Yes 74.63%
Dr vulpes Yes 76.48%
EggRoll97 No 39.89%
FOARP Yes 71.66%
Frost No 27.57%
Hawkeye7 No 44.12%
Knightoftheswords281 No 16.08%
Leonidlednev No 25.14%
LindsayH Yes 66.48%
MarcGarver Yes 68.91%
Mdewman6 Yes 59.82%
Pbritti Yes 67.37%
Peaceray Yes 71.62%
Pharaoh of the Wizards No 40.53%
Queen of Hearts Yes 78.74%
Robert McClenon No 55.70%
Rsjaffe Yes 78.19%
Sable232 No 55.03%
SD0001 Yes 75.18%
SilverLocust Yes 82.42%
Sohom Datta Yes 73.40%
Spy-cicle No 39.34%
Starship.paint No 54.34%
SWinxy No 48.70%
ThadeusOfNazereth Yes 78.48%
The Squirrel Conspiracy No 64.55%
Valenciano Yes 68.42%
Velella No 49.22%
Zippybonzo No 17.77%

Lastly, one overall impression about the process: While I appreciate that the random sorting helped avoid any undue scrutiny of candidates based on alphabetical order of usernames, it made it quite a bit harder to match everyone up with the voter guides/nomination pages as I was going through them. I hope that we'll find a way to make this easier if we do this again.

Cheers, Sdkb talk 05:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the transparency :) There's a few where we voted differently, but nothing I feel like I need to argue with you over. As to your last point: I'd prefer an alphabetical listing where the starting point is random (so every candidate shows up at the top the same number of times, but it's not too hard to correlate to an actual alphabetical list elsewhere). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea! Sdkb talk 05:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love that idea. I have filed phab:T378313! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that "somewhat tougher than I would be at a normal RfA" still means 17 yes. Helps give me hope that we will get a bunch of new admins out of this experiment. -- asilvering (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an outcomes column now that results have been released. It appears that I was more generous than the electorate as a whole. Sdkb talk 22:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done about 2020 census results on US city/town/CDP articles?

Hi Sdkb. I noticed that you proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities that the discussion about the 2020 census issue be moved to another location, but then it looks like you reverted your own edit. I think moving the discussion elsewhere is a good idea. We don't want a page devoted to a broad subject like cities to be swamped with potentially dozens of longish entries about a subject few people will be interested in. Closing the topic with a pointer to where the discussion is continuing seems to be the way to go. Why the revert? PopePompus (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to close the thread at the Village Pump, pointing to the discussion you started at WT:CITIES to consolidate everything there. Sillily, I accidentally closed the discussion at WT:CITIES, circularly redirecting to WT:CITIES. I reverted that and then closed the discussion I meant to at the pump. Hope that clarifies! Cheers, Sdkb talk 18:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

Hello Sdkb, I liked your suggestion about a "Did You Know" for the LaTasha Barnes article. I am going to try posting that. Thanks very much, Wroliver (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wroliver, good luck! There is still cleanup work to do at LaTasha Barnes to make it less promotional and more encyclopedic—you can look at the biographies of other dancers (say, Frankie Manning) to get a sense of what's expected. If you have any questions, or once you've completed your edits, post at the nomination page to let the reviewer, Dumelow, know. I'd do one of those two today, since if you don't show that you're actively working on it, the nomination will time out.
I know DYK can be a haul, but it's worth it to see the article appear on the Main Page (with its 6 million daily views)!
Cheers, Sdkb talk 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sdkb,
Thanks for the link to Manning's bio. I will do some additional work on the article to make it less promotional.
192.65.213.200 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sdkb,
I've responded to all corrections requested in my LaTasha Barnes article. I had been corresponding with Dumelow about it, but most of the conversations on his talk page have disappeared, including mine. I'm wondering if you can help. I tried posting the new DYK hook that you suggested, and was asked to make changes to the article. Would you be able to approve the hook and article? How should I proceed?
Thanks,
Wroliver (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wroliver! The central place to discuss any DYK nomination is the DYK nomination page, in this case Template:Did you know nominations/LaTasha Barnes. So I would put all replies there. You can ping Dumelow (using the @ symbol or the person-plus icon) to give him a notification if needed. He needs to grant approval for the nomination to proceed. (Your prior conversation on Dumelow's talk page has been archived, something many users do to keep their talk pages from becoming too long. It's here. The possibility that conversations elsewhere get archived or missed is one reason to keep all discussion centralized at the nomination page.) Hope that helps! Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I will go back to the nominations page. Wroliver (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Maxsudova Kamola Maxmudovna (08:40, 29 October 2024)

Assalomu alaykum men iqtibozni qanday yarataman --Maxsudova Kamola Maxmudovna (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assalomu alaykum vikipediya nima qanday joylayman --Maxsudova Kamola Maxmudovna (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assalomu alaykum iqtibozni qanday yarataman --Maxsudova Kamola Maxmudovna (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxsudova Kamola Maxmudovna: Hi! Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. We have an Uzbek edition that may be useful to you — see uz:Bosh Sahifa.
Salom! Vikipediya - bu onlayn ensiklopediya. Bizda siz uchun foydali boʻlishi mumkin boʻlgan oʻzbekcha nashr mavjud — ushbu sahifaga qarang: uz:Bosh Sahifa Sdkb talk 14:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mobtown Ballroom

On 30 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mobtown Ballroom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mobtown Ballroom and Café enlisted volunteers to build its sprung wood floor by hand – twice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mobtown Ballroom. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mobtown Ballroom), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Genesis (Lebrun)

On 8 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Genesis (Lebrun), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rico Lebrun refused to submit sketches of Genesis (detail pictured), a mural commissioned by Pomona College, for approval by its board of trustees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Genesis (Lebrun). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Genesis (Lebrun)), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona College revert

I absolutely agree with your revert of the See Also links for Pomona College. How I ended up on the college's page, I have no idea, because immediately thereafter, I added the same See Also to KSPC, its radio station. I'm working from the recently added List of college radio stations in the United States, and this would be the first and only time I've accessed a page other than a radio station's. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Higginbothampub (03:53, 11 November 2024)

Hello. I wanted to create a new page for Nicole Higginbotham-Hogue. How do I go about doing that? --Higginbothampub (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Higginbothampub! See Help:Your first article. Also, since your username relates to the subject, see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest. Cheers, Sdkb talk 05:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WikiEditor5678910 (00:44, 12 November 2024)

What is a role beyond editor on Wikipedia that is easy to achieve? --WikiEditor5678910 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor5678910, I suggest applying for Certified Hat Collector.[just kidding] Actually, though, Rollbacker is typically one of the first granted. Best, Sdkb talk 01:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sandeepchennai (11:56, 19 November 2024)

is my content fine to publish? --Sandeepchennai (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Your first article. Sdkb talk 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sandeepchennai (10:20, 20 November 2024)

is my content fine to publish? i have given possible reference links and cite links --Sandeepchennai (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which content? Please link to it. Sdkb talk 15:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your work at Teahouse. Best, Luke Elaine Burke (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

Luke Elaine Burke (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I happily drink the tea, Luke Elaine Burke! The Teahouse is a place I'm always happy to be! Sdkb talk 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Editing

What is the main purpose of Editing on Wikipedia?. And can you just Edit without having any reasonable reason?. Raph Williams65 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raph Williams65: We're here to write an encyclopedia. You don't need any particular reason to start editing (there are many), so long as your contributions are constructive toward that goal. Sdkb talk 18:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: thanks for the tip!, it was helpful. Raph Williams65 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Raph Williams65 on Adminship

Hey User:Sdkb. 

*How can i become an Admin?. What does it takes to become an Administrator?. What is the significant role of an Administrator on Wikipedia?.

-- Raph Williams65 (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raph Williams65, see Wikipedia:Administrator. Sdkb talk 08:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes and Wikidata

When filling in the "Critic's response" in a film's en.wiki WP article, I update the Wikidata for the film, then use the following in the WP article: {{RT prose|{{RT data|score}}|{{RT data|average}}|{{RT data|count}}|prose prose prose prose|ref=yes|access-date={{RT data|date}}}}

Short and sweet, very very convenient, automatically updates the WP article if some user later updates the Wikidata fields.

A challenge is that, if the information for the Rotten Tomatoes average rating has "/10" included in the Wikidata field, it results in a double "/10/10" appearing in the WP article. For example, for the 2021 film Oxygen, putting 6.8/10 in the Wikidata field results in the en.wikipedia article displaying:

... of 106 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 6.8/10/10.

The only way to avoid this is to not include the "/10" when filling in the Wikidata field, resulting in the en.wikipedia article properly showing:

... of 106 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 6.8/10.

While this "workaround" resulted in a nice output for en.wikipedia articles, it has been brought to my attention, by de.wiki editor Eiragorn, that leaving out some of the extra detail in the cross-language shared Wikidata is resulting in issues for the templates used in the WP articles in other languages. The "workaround" to make the en.wikipedia template work is hurting other ill.wikipedia templates.

I should point out that, until very recently, this "double display" issue would also happen if the Tomatometer score, in the Wikidata file, had the "%" symbol included, resulting in a double "%%" appearing in the en.wikipedia article. For the Oxygen example, this produced:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 90%% of 106 critics' reviews...

It appears this has been fixed in the en.wikipedia template. In fact, it is "beyond fixed", as you can now enter the digits by themselves (90), or the digits and the symbol (90%), and the result in always a single "%" appearing in the en.wikipedia article. For the Oxygen example, this now always produces:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 90% of 106 critics' reviews...

Can the {{RT data|average}}, for use in en.wikipedia articles, be adjusted to always show a proper, single, "/10" in the WP article? I can, then, gleefully will in the Wikidata fields with all the proper addons (%, /10) and not worry that it blows up other ill.wikis.

If I should take this to someone else, please point me in the right direction. Either way, thank you for your help. Jmg38 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jmg38! Good questions. I would actually start by going to Wikidata and asking there what the proper format for recording the information is. It might be that they have some different way of recording the /10 denominator and that you therefore shouldn't include it in the value. Or not. They also have the ability to introduce constraint violations or make mass edits to enforce the proper format.
Once that's done, we (and the other Wikipedias) can then work with it as a baseline. It'd certainly still be good to make {{RT data}} more flexible, though, so that it can better handle errors at Wikidata. Having it either enforce the /10 or force its omission for RT data sounds very doable. @Indagate has done some work on the module recently, and might be able to help or might know who else could.
Cheers, Sdkb talk 00:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will pursue those ideas. Thank you. Jmg38 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sdkb&oldid=1260868070"