User talk:SlimVirgin/April 2016

FAC/EmRata

	FAC/EmRata
	Sorry, didn't mean to mansplain. I hope we won't get to where you'll never speak to me again! GRuban (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. Thank you, GRuban. I managed to avoid using that word, but yes, that's what it felt like. But it really wasn't directed at you anyway. Thanks again. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you could respond to my 15:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC) query at FAC3, that would be great.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Style update

FYI. 166.176.59.66 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks for letting me know. Means I don't have to keep wondering how to write these things. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For calling me out with this edit, but doing so diplomatically and with WP:AGF in mind. Also, for generally being an awesome contributor to our community, and I hope the long conversations about creating more receptive places within our community pan out. Sadads (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Sadads. I know you didn't mean anything by it, by the way. Thanks for taking it so well. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't at all worried by it: I figured, I see you work often enough, but rarely have an opportunity to give you a Barnstar :) I am trying to be a good ally, when I can: and my teaching background (I taught 5 sections of diversity focused freshman writing course during grad school), makes me one of the more prepared people in this community for pointing out these kinds of issues -- but 5 sections of a diversity focused course, and the training to teach it are not what I would call the best training for offering advice for users that stumble into these kinds of issues. I wish my criticism had been better received.... Sadads (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you're willing to be an ally. I don't know whether you know anything about sport and Associated Football. An issue I've just noticed is that women football (soccer) players in Scotland aren't getting articles because they're not professional; men are, but women aren't, and WP:NFOOTY (the notability guideline) favours professionals. But we don't do that with all other sports. For example, WP:NHOCKEY:

"Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant."

So that seems unfair. Nfitz first raised it, and it has become an issue at AN/I (Accusations of misogyny), and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogan Hay. Ideally WP:NFOOTY would be changed. If you have no time or inclination to get involved, by the way, please don't feel you have to. I often groan when I see these things, because I want to spend less time here but feel I have to say something, so I don't want to pass that sinking feeling to anyone else. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 01:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the sports drama! I really never fully understand how the Notability guidelines for sports get formed -- they tend to be small groups of people, with very little broader community perspective -- huge fans, no real contextual knowledge. I probably am not going to wade into that -- looks like some sane voices are working on it at ANI. The AFD is firmly in the keep. Call me in on anything culture or history related! I find I share a more common language and ability/passion to argue through those issues. I will keep an eye on supporting other stuff too. Mind if I watch your talk page?

In the meantime, I am feeling gnomish: you might have fun with: https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en/ Fixing {{cn}}s never got so easy! Sadads (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Just curious, if you can close one or two sections, why can't you close the whole thing down? I know you've participated, but not in such as way that you'd be considered 'involved'. Plus there is an consensus at the bottom for closure. (also, why haven't any other admins shut this down yet?) Anyways, Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 03:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It took some time to read through it all. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarah. I sure that was quite a chore. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 05:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve cite templates

Hi, User:Wikid77 here. I was on wikibreak for about 2 years and returned to see cite templates stuck on red-error messages for dates (all years before AD 100?) in 18,000 pages, and now flagging the language "Ancient Greek" as a check-language issue. I think more RfCs are needed to confirm the users want easier cites, with fewer restrictions, not more errors. Example:

{{cite book |author=Cleopatra VII |title=Stuff |date=36 BCE |language=[[Koine Greek]]}} shows:
Cleopatra VII (36 BCE). Stuff (in Koine Greek). {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

Meanwhile, the French WP cite templates (see: fr:Template:Ouvrage) for 5 years have allowed title-notes as parameter "description=" (displayed after "titre=" title) and now autofix dates, without error msgs, such as changing American "June 7, 2015" into typical French "7 juin 2015" no complaints. I was planning to create a separate RfC page for each cite problem (date error, language, title description, etc.). However, should I combine all major wp:CS1 cite topics into a single RfC page or split as multiple RfCs? No hurry, I've been planning this for months. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sportswomen Notability

Hi Sarah, thought I would move this off the ANI page to your talk page as it was just you and me discussing this and it was kind of in the middle of a tangentially related discussion. Feel free to ping anyone else though whom you think would want to join in.

I agree that this is a good opportunity to fix WP:NFOOTY to make sure it's written in a way that does not discriminate against women in football. See Wikipedia:Writing about women:

Women comprise between 8.5 and 16.1 percent of editors on the English Wikipedia.[1] This means that most articles are written by men, as are most of the content policies, including the notability and referencing policies. Those policies in turn determine which articles about women can be hosted, and frame many of the ways in which they are written.

LauraHale has worked hard to promote women in sport. She hasn't edited here since January, but I'm pinging her anyway in case she has thoughts about how to change the guideline. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For ice hockey (WP:NHOCKEY), we allow "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant." That's the situation with Brogan Hay. As I understand it, she's playing at the highest level at which she can play in Scotland, but there is no professional level for women there. So we ought to add that caveat to WP:NFOOTY. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My question would be how would this be applied across football in general? I presume you are not suggesting creating a bias towards women's articles by imposing a lower level of notability based solely on gender? Are you suggesting that NFOOTY be amended to state that all players in a given country's top league are presumed notable?

The problem with that would be the vast number of non-notable male footballers who would suddenly fit this criterion, not to mention non-notable female footballers, all of whom play in very minor leagues which attract very little attention.

If the desire is to see more articles on women, then I would suggest editors start on the large number of missing articles for women who have played senior international football, who pass NFOOTY as is but do currently have an article and thereby begin to solve this problem top down not bottom up. And let's not get started on the poor state of articles on women's football clubs, national teams and competitions.

If the desire is to see more articles on women in a given league, i.e. Scotland in this instance, surely GNG is the best root to follow. Again this solves the problem from a top down pov by ensuring that articles are created on the most notable female footballers first before there is any need to alter a subject specific guideline.

I am more than happy to get in a discussion on how to make football articles more inclusive, but I am adamant that any changes made must be applicable to all footballers, not simply female footballers and that the risk of a flood of hitherto non-notable players of either gender may suddenly appear.

However, I would be interested to see, particularly if a wider audience beyond the usual WP:FOOTY editors can be engaged, if a consensus can be reached that players from a country's top division are deemed notable regardless of gender. That somewhat blunt approach seems to me to be the only way to resolve this issue in a way that provides clarity on notability to even the most inexperienced of editors and allows the inclusion of more articles on female footballers without creating a positive bias. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fenix, I'm not sure what you mean by applying any new suggestion across football in general. My suggestion is that WP:NFOOTY follow WP:NHOCKEY, and add a clause that says something like:

"Played one or more games in an amateur league that is the highest level of competition available because of the lack of a professional league."

Alternatively, NFOOTY could follow WP:NRU (for Rugby Union), which cites women, and say something like:

"Or has played one or more games at the highest level of competition available in women's football in her country."

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see other sections on that page cite women; e.g. WP:NBASKETBALL (though the Women's National Basketball Association is professional); WP:NBOX (mentions women and amateur boxers); and WP:NCYCLING. It should be easy enough to add a sentence to NFOOTY that accommodates what happens in the women's game. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what you are saying above, you would want to include a specific comment regarding women's football that read something like, "female players who have not played senior international football are considered notable if they have participated in a countries top league". My first response to you would be, why would you not look to change NFOOTY in total rather than simply adding a separate, lower level of notability for women.

Firstly, from the perspective of logic your suggestion is fundamentally flawed. There is undeniably an issue with gender bias on WP, not just sports, but I am not sure that will be solved by essentially creating the opposite bias by lowering the notability requirements for women in a given field simply to allow the creation of more articles. Either the notability requirements of NFOOTY are too high in general and need to be lowered across the board which would allow the creation of articles for players regardless of gender who have played in country's top league, or they are not and the focus for notability remains squarely with GNG.

Secondly, this creates a knock on effect whereby female players in many countries are essentially notable as long as play in their top league whereas their male counterparts are not unless they fulfill stricter criteria. Whilst this might not be an issue in some sports, the fact that there is significant organised competition in essentially every country in the world for football means that this fundamentally won't work. For example it would mean that every female player in this league was notable, whereas in the men's league only those who had played senior international football would be, whereas in reality there are probably no non-international level Barbadian footballers notable enough for their own article regardless of gender. This is why I think your proposal to adopt an element of NHOCKEY just wouldn't work, whether applied to women or to all players.

Thirdly, and I think this is most important point in many ways is the need to manage other editors! WP:FOOTY can be quite curmudgeonly and process-orientated and I am not sure much traction would be gained by suggesting a lower level of notability for women. I'm not sure what a solution to this would be though, the only one I have bar just impressing upon people that all players have to fulfill GNG regardless of level (which they do anyway), is to use criterion 1 from NHOCKEY, namely: "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league" in addition to the current FPL criterion to cover lower tiers in countries which would prevent a flood of essentially non-notable players from lower divisions with some degree of professionalism.

This would require an expansion of WP:FPL to cover all leagues, male and female that can be sourced as being professional, not fully professional, (whilst acknowledging that there will be some that contain an element of semi-professionalism but that acceptance of this is beneficial for the greater good). This would however still limit the number of women's leagues that provide inherent notability to players, but it would see a substantial expansion and equality in notability by gender whilst still acknowledging that it is a demonstrable fact that women's football receives globally less coverage than the men's game and is therefore less notable and that it is not WP's job to artificially attempt to correct this.

Finally a few comments on the other notability guidelines you note that mention women.

WP:NHOCKEY - as noted above, the much greater popularity of football globally means that criterion 2 is simply unworkable, thousands of people would suddenly be presumed notable despite having received essentially no substantial coverage. We would be forced to fall back on GNG in virtually every case making the subject specific guideline worthless.
WP:NRU - I think actually you have misread this guideline. The mention of women in criterion one is made solely to illustrate that no woman can fulfill it as women's teams are not ranked in the same way. This is actually similar notability guideline to NFOOTY, but is more restrictive as NFOOTY presumes any woman who has played a senior international match to be notable regardless of the competition or ranking of the team.
WP:NHOOPS - focuses solely on "professional" competition, not fully professional. Could be used as part of a justification to tweak NFOOTY to a similar rationale.
WP:NBOX - this differentiates between men and women because there are different governing bodies for men and women. There are not for football, so I'm not sure this is relevant in this context. Beyond this distinction men and women are treated the same for notability purposes.
WP:NCYC - again this differentiates between men and women essentially because the UCI World Tour is a men only competition. I don't see any other material difference between the men and women's criteria. That said, like the other guidelines you note, I think it is useful that gender is specifically addressed.

Sorry for the long response, I hope you had the energy to read it. I wrote it because I do think that this is something that needs to be addressed, but that it will be something that will be difficult to achieve. I think if any change is made it will be essential to have involvement from people like you and a wider involvement outside of WP:FOOTY in general. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Jesus

Hi Sarah. I am writing something about this as we speak, and was looking for Pauline references to Jesus. Sources for the historicity of Jesus was a good start, and quite useful. But nowhere can I find a reference to 1 Corinthians 15:4 'he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures'. This is pretty famous because I am sure it is the only reference by Paul to the resurrection. I am intrigued by why it is not in an article about the historicity of Jesus. I expect because, if we regard resurrection as impossible, it cannot possibly be historical. But then later in that article it says 'Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion', so why isn't the well-known reference in Corinthians 15:4 included with a caveat that the historicity of the resurrection is disputed (as it is, by many)? And of course if the resurrection did occur, it would surely be 'historical'. But I won't touch the article in case it sparks off some nuclear catastrophe. Peter Damian (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Peter, it's not something I can help with. You could ask the editor who created the sources article. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was more for your entertainment - it appealed to my sense of the absurd. Hope you are well. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

There have been reverts. Extend PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, I've semi-protected. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted in ArbCom evidence

Hi... I've submitted evidence to the Wikicology ArbCom case in which I have quoted you from ANI because I am commenting on Wikicology's response. I thought I should let you know as a courtesy. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR comments

I see no benefit in posting it there and stirring the pot further, but I can assure you that everyone who is or ever has been on arbcom is well aware of the effects of being the target of persistent attention from weirdos. If any arb really gets so stressed at people making rude comments about them, they start lashing out and constructing conspiracy theories to account for people happening to disagree with them, arbcom is the last place they should be. Sure, this is just one more reason why Wikipedia's governance structure needs to be radically rebuilt, but until that happens the current setup is what we have. Per my comments there, I don't think they should have taken this case for other reasons, but allowing "they had it coming" as a defense is an awful precedent to set and would take Wikipedia right back to the days of the 2007 committee. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I'm currently wondering where best to talk about this. I wouldn't want to discuss it here, and it's hard to know where, because people who have experienced this don't want to discuss it in public. As a result, discussions are almost always left to the ones who don't know, which means we continue, year after year, to get this wrong. Good article in the Guardian today by Danielle Citron. [1] SarahSV ^(talk) 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a right place, since any public venue would become a bear-pit for the ED fringe but any private venue would lead to (probably legitimate) complaints of collusion and of going back to the days of smoke-filled rooms. Ironically, what Wikipedia really needs is an equivalent to the Somey-era Wikipedia Review, where the moderation was so strict that people of opposing views could feel comfortable talking to each other, but modded discussion is so inimical to Wikipedia it'll never happen. (I do feel that the gamergate squabble is ridiculously overhyped in both directions; for every obsessive keyboard warrior on both sides, there are dozens of people with vague concerns who'd probably get on fine if they met their opposite numbers, but because those who shout the loudest are the only ones who make good copy, anyone with the slightest concern is either a BIGOTED EXTREMIST TROLL or a FEMINAZI SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR.) The reality is that hardly any editor or reader actually cares about most of this, but the shouters on both sides mean it's spilling into areas in which it has no right to spill. "All Wikipedia/Wikimedia staff and functionaries are banned from posting to Twitter for the duration of their terms other than in an official capacity with the approval of the Board in relation to product launches and events" would probably cut the nonsense by 75% instantly, although that's not going to happen. Someone like Alison, who's on speaking terms with both camps, understands how Wikipedia operates, and presumably remembers Usenet days well enough to know the difference between strong opinions and outright trolling, might have some ideas on how to defuse this nonsense. ‑ Iridescent 20:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there's much hope left for WP, much as I once believed in the idea of information being free and freely available, but I suppose time will tell. Eric Corbett 23:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My own position is that WP needs a "rule of law." What the "rulz" are may change, but NOTDEMOCRACY is where the failure lies... I have previously pointed out elsewhere the parallels between WP and the anarchist marginal-utopia of The Dispossessed. We have been developing a common law of sorts over the years, but it is perhaps time to make things a bit more formal, lest the anarchy devolve into a Game of Thrones amongst disaffected warlords. Just a thought. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP will fade away unless some serious changes are made. Which they won't be. Eric Corbett 01:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Just that. --Jorm (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jorm. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question for Wikicology

Hi Sarah,

I trust you're fine. You asked a question here. I am here to answer your question but I'm willing to reply here or here. I used my phone to create the article. This is how I did it; I go to messages, then draft a rough version with citations. From the rough version, I drafted the final version which I planned to submit before I submitted the problematic version. I don't find it easy writing directly on main space or sandbox when using phone.

Internet data costs a lot of money here. Computers consume more data than mobile phones. I can save up to 20 USD if I only edit with my phone and not my computer. I pay for both phone data and computer data in different bills. Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it cost $20 to make and an edit to Wikipedia? Isn't this a serious issue for Wikimedia Foundation? Peter Damian (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what I don't understand is today you made one single edit to the evidence page, which you claim above would cost $20, then you made 9 minor edits. So total cost $200. I will reimburse you if you email me. Peter Damian (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, let me reimburse the $200 because those edits would not have been made today if I hadn't brought attention to those problems in evidence I had hoped to give. Ca2james (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, thanks for replying. I have no idea why the clerk hatted it on evidence talk, but it's better in a central location, so I'll copy this discussion to workshop talk and will ping you there. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hermann Goering 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hermann Goering 2.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]