Wozal
A barnstar for you!
edit
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| For your vigilance in flagging problems with Washington University of Barbados, which turned out to be a massive fraud (and is now written that way). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks
editThank you for correcting some of my recent categorisations. Some of my choices were poor, you were right to revert them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Phoebe A. Hearst Fine Arts Magnet School
editHello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Phoebe A. Hearst Fine Arts Magnet School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. BangJan1999 21:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of DJ Delete, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: NME citation suggests possible notability. I would take this to other deletion methods. Thank you. BangJan1999 01:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Category:Rice School of Architecture faculty has been nominated for merging
edit
Category:Rice School of Architecture faculty has been nominated for merging. 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. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Emptying categories
editHello, Wozal,
While an article might shift out of one category and into another, please do not remove all of the pages in a category so it is tagged for speedy deletion, CSD C1. This is called "emptying categories out of process" and is considered disruptive editing, especially if it is done on a large scale to many categories. If you believe that a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please put in a nomination at Categories for Discussion as you can see in the message above this one. This way, other editors can consider the changes you want to make and can arrive at a consensus. This is even more important than other procedures with articles (AFD) or redirects (RFD) because all categories exist in a hierarchy and what affects one category can affect others. For example, if there is a decision to do away with one category that divides individuals by gender, it can affect other, similar categories that also divide individuals by gender.
So, please, before taking on any major recategorization projects, bring them to CFD and post your suggested changes. And if you are interested in Wikipedia's categorization structures, I encourage you to review other editors' proposals at CFD and make your own judgments about whether or not the nominations are an improvement or not. We always need more thoughtful participants involved in deletion discussions. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Liz,
- My apologies and thank you for this helpful note! Would it be correct to assume that past consensus on categories isn't always an indicator for similar categories? (IE: If School X had Y Category eliminated, would School Z have Y category eliminated or would that go through the same process as school X?
- 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Wozal (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red
editHi there, Wozal, and thanks for adding the Women in Red tag to your user page. It's good to see you intend to help us chip away at the gender gap. If you would like to become a full member of the project, you can join under "New registrations" on this page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up on this, Wozal, and welcome to Women in Red. As you have not yet created any biographies of women, you might find it useful to look through our Essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2023
edit 
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
Women in Red in February 2023
edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Consensus about college and university rankings in the lede?
editYou've made several edits removing college and university rankings from the lede of articles, writing in your edit summary that "General Wikipedia consensus is that this wording should only go in the lead for universities that are ranked in the top 10 by the major publications (see other comparably ranked institutions)." Where is this consensus documented? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @ElKevbo, I'm going to self-revert soon unless I can find the original source. Rereading things, I feel that I may have misread things. I first noticed the wording here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cornell_University&action=history
- and some conversations of the like here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_California,_Berkeley/Archive_7#Is_Berkeley_a_top_10_university?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Chicago/Archive_3#Prestigious_Ranking
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh -> I'd like to know where this user is also getting this information which seem to be stated matter of fact way/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Rankings
- and lastly, I think those above with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:College_and_university_article_advice#Draft_proposal_to_clarify_appropriate_statements_about_prestige_and_rankings_in_the_lede made me made misunderstand your original post.
- Wozal (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know that there is an explicit, documented consensus on this issue. I would really like for there to be one which is why I'm considering an RfC although as you can see from what I wrote on that advice Talk page I'm leaning toward simply requiring multiple, high quality sources that explicitly support a statement in the lede instead of requiring a specific ranking.
- I just wanted to check with you to see if I had missed a discussion somewhere that had already addressed this. ElKevbo (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Athgo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is 15 years old. Please use AFD to discuss deletion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Ivanvector,
- Thanks for the prompt notice. In the past, I've seen articles 10-15 years old get deleted through speedy deletion. By chance, can you provide me with a link to the guidelines saying that articles above a certain age won't get deleted through speedy deletion? If this is a new policy, I'd really like to familiarize myself with the age range to avoid unneccesssary backlog for you and other admins!
- Thanks,
- Wozal (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'll admit there is no policy that says that speedy deletion can only apply to recently created pages (excepting WP:R3). In this instance, the article has existed for a long time with basically the same content, with numerous editors having contributed to and reviewed it during that time, including a few names I recognize as people active in anti-spam and deletion, yet nobody has suggested that it should be deleted. Therefore, it seems to me that deletion might be controversial, and it ought to be subject to discussion where the other contributors could give their opinion, i.e. WP:AFD. Speedy deletion is for very obvious cases where nobody could reasonably object, and I don't think that bar is met here, that's all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2023
edit
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Details
editPlease how do I add templates for personal details to an article Derick CO (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Derick CO, template information can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates Wozal (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean infoboxes Derick CO (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Infoboxes can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes Wozal (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean infoboxes Derick CO (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2023
edit
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2023
edit
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello Wozal. I am letting you know that in the category sporting_affiliations, you allowed to enter more than one conference. If you check the Massachusetts Institute of Technology they have six different sporting affiliations. University of Notre Dame has three including football, hockey Big Ten Conference and the main conference of the Atlantic Coast Conference. I would like to add that Washington University in St. Louis is an affiliate member of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin in the major sport of football. I hope you do not revert this edit. You may also check the California State University, Sacramento who has many affiliations including baseball and women's rowing. Please consider that it is allowed to have more than one entry for the sporting affilation(s) category. These entries may be football, hockey, lacrosse or any other sport. Please leave a response on your talk page. Dannyzk (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Dannyzk
- Using your example of MIT, it appears that MIT is a fully-pledged member of all 6 conferences. It also appears that University of Notre Dame is also a fully-pledged member of the conferences listed.
- Looking at the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin, it lists 9 affiliate members which it seems to distinguish from its other members. From what I can see, none of these universities had CCIW listed under their affiliations prior to your edit. It's the longstanding tradition of not including affiliated members in this case which leads me to believe this is likely something worth discussion to change. Per WP:ONUS, while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
- Clicking around, I found the State University of New York Athletic Conference, which has one former member. Its infobox does not include the conference, but it is mentioned in the athletics section. The same seems to hold true for Old Dominion Athletic Conference and I'm sure it holds true for other conferences, especially at the D3 level where Sports tend not to be as dominating of a force as the D1 schools. Given the purpose of the infobox is to summarize information and per Help:Infobox, also aims to avoid trivial information. We have to ask how prevelant something is to include in the infobox. I don't neccessarily disagree that the content shouldn't be included but rather that it seems to be that the infobox seems to traditionally not include affiliate members. However, placement of the infobox can also be seen as WP:UNDUE depending on what's there and we'd have to consider what else this could possibly open up as well as what those finer details might be. For these reasons, I think it's worthwhile for you to start a conversation on this at Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice. Wozal (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Wozal. I meant to say University of Notre Dame. They are an associate member of hockey in the Big Ten Conference, not a full member of that conference. California State University, Sacramento is an associate member of the Western Athletic Conference for baseball and an associate member of the American Athletic Conference for women's rowing. These are listed under sporting affiliations. The purpose of joining other conferences is to participate in sports not offered by your conference or to save money on travel costs. They may be a single sport conference such as ECAC Hockey or a conference with many sports. Washington University in St. Louis only plays in one varsity sport outside the conference and that is in football. Please consider that football, baseball and soccer are considered major sports. There is no difference in playing in a single sports conference or a multi sports conference for football or any other sport. Please reconsider adding football in the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin to the Washington University in St. Louis site. The information is true. Dannyzk (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red - June 2023
edit
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Pending changes reviewer granted
edit
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Rollback granted
edit
Hi Wozal. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
edit|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A piece of cake for you!
edit
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| A piece of cake for you! Thank you for participating. |
Women in Red August 2023
edit
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2023 at Women in Red
edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2023
edit
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2023
edit
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
CCCU
editShould universities in the CCCU category when they are already in a subcategory of the page? Many colleges are in a category for their college, which is already in the CCCU category. The CCCU category does not appear to be non-diffusing. WP:PARENTCAT. glman (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's the subcategory of the page. To me, it appears like Wikipedia:EPON is being used and that while the article of each university should be placed accordingly, the category (which displays as a subcategory) of the school should not since those additional categories are not relevant to CCCU category.
- An example:
- Both New York City and Category:New York City fit well in Category:Cities in New York (state).
- The article New York City is in Category:Populated places established in 1624, but this category is not necessarily relevant to the content of Category:New York City, so it should not be used on the eponymous category.
- Taking this into account, the article's page should be listed but alumni would have nothing to do with CCCU as a whole.
- Wozal (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will plan to remove the school categories from CCCU then! glman (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023
edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
edit Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 25
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boxford, Massachusetts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boston College Eagles ice hockey.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2024
edit
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Category:Wesleyan Female College (Wilmington)
editCurious about your removal of a bunch of categories within Category:Wesleyan Female College (Wilmington). Is this category not meant to be included in those other categories? --Engineerchange (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Engineerchange,
- To me, it reads as Wikipedia:EPON. The school's wikipedia page should be categorized within those categories; the category of that school does not seem to be categorized within those schools. I believe this is done to minimize double categorizing the two as well as well as to avoid giving additional weight to certain schools when in the original category. Wozal (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Understood, appreciate the reply. I tend to stay away from adding categories in Wikipedia because of the rules being a bit weird. --Engineerchange (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I am wondering why you erased my addition to the Washington University in St. Louis article. you did not say in the edit summary. Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruxton,
- Hello! Hope today finds you well and that you're keeping warm! Apologies in advance for the long message. I just want to make my thought process as transparent as possible as edit summaries are often limiting.
- My original edit was based on adding and restoring non-university sources (which in part involved replacing those sources with non-university sources and getting rid of an overly crowded section. I was not targeting any specific people; simply looking at references and ensuring that they were secondary sources when possible since universities articles often have overused primary sources when a secondary source would be better suited for notability. There are times when primary sources are unavoidable for certain facts, but I'm a huge proponent of using secondary sources whenever a valid source exists. The original layout distinguished recent alumni from earlier graduates but made no mention of what those cut-offs were nor what made them distinguishable from other. From my scan of around 50 other pages, no other university's page distinguished between them. As such, this seemed like an easy way to combine those two paragraphs but required additional cutting or else the material in that section would seem undue.
- Your original edit mentioned they were a professor emerita but under the faculty section, I imagine that a fair number of 900 faculty there, would likely also qualify for the same title if they were long-term faculty members there. Using Massviews, then seemed to be part of how to better distinguish someone who was notable but that number alone isn't enough.
- Per WP:UNIGUIDE, which is often where larger talk consensus for universities happens and seems to be the standard for other institutions,
- Noted people – This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.
- Which then leads us to if using the company she founded, would we know what her company was? I imagine it does not have the same instant name recognition as those currently listed. While everything has at least 1 source now, I feel like there are still big weaknesses to the page. Part of it lies in the fact that a lot of the information on faculty members don't mention how long they were there for. There are adjunct members as well as visiting professors. At one point, I thought there was a minimum amount of years required to be flagged as a faculty member under Wikipedia's standards, but I can't seem to find that.
- I also believe this page could perhaps be more inclusive if there were sections like this one to better show that faculty do have lives outside of academia both before and after.
- Would be more than happy to collaborate with you as I think Pat Wolff's charity seems like it does excellent work even if not as known as other charities! Wozal (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
edit
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Invitation to join New pages patrol
edit
Hello Wozal!
- The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
- We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
- Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
- Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
- If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2024
edit
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2024
edit
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Request to review an article
editGreetings, I hope you are doing well. I am so respectful that you have the reviewing rights. I have an article for a Geneticist, Leon Mutesa, and I would appreciate it if you review it for me. Thanks. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red June 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2024
edit|
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Delete after reading
editIf I offended you, I apologize. The intent was to seek more information and point out the appropriate talk section on his page. The accusation that I edited in a "paid letter" (Stop trying to introduce it here.) and Julin hadn't been brought up in the talk section already (There's a proper way to handle this) felt like an attack and I wouldn't intend to respond that way. Apologies if it came across as such. Count3D (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion of (not notable) spouse in infobox
editHey, I noticed a couple edits (e.g., Thomas Bibb and Howard Bryant) where you say the spouse's name is not notable for the infobox. Can you point to policy here? As far as I've seen, the spouse's name is included even if they are not notable in the infobox (e.g., Geena Davis, John Lewis, Richard Pryor). I have seen children and parents' names removed from the infobox if they don't have a notable entry in the encyclopedia, though. --Engineerchange (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Engineerchange,
- Thanks for the note.
- Based on the infobox, the directions state "Spouse(s), if notable". On a similar note, I've also seen well established editors remove presidents from being listed if they don't have a stand-alone wikipedia article. Is it wrong to assume that the directions for the infoboxes are based off of the policy of WP:Consensus? Wozal (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, I've never seen anyone remove spouses like this before, so I am curious what other edits you've seen like this. Are there any presidents without standalone articles? I don't see that note on Template:Infobox officeholder or in the couple places on Template:Infobox person regarding spouse, so maybe the comments you saw were from older versions of the template(s)? --Engineerchange (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is interesting. The data on those templates don't match up with the information when one is visually editing and double-click the infobox. I think this is the first time I've seen a discrepancy between the two. Shouldn't the infobox template on each page match the information provided on the master template?
- I took a look at the different infoboxes and this one requires notability for the spouses/partners, which matches closely (but not exactly) to the wording when one double-clicks certain infoboxes. Template:Infobox artist.
- Apologies on my end; I meant to say college/university presidents. There are a number of university presidents without a standalone page. I think most of them are at schools with smaller student populations. Wozal (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, wow, I see your point. I don't use the visual editor. It seems like those descriptions are boilerplate text for any infobox. I'll start a thread on Template:Infobox person about it to get some traction. Also, as far as I know (from making some mistakes in the past), Infobox artist is a very separate beast. I think a similar community of editors frown upon infoboxes being included at all in some cases: the classical composer community, for instance (talk thread). Professional athletes (like NFL and MLB players don't even have spouse as an option in infobox), but I think Infobox person and Infobox officeholder have no disclaimer of notability for spouses in infobox; otherwise, it would noted on the template main page. Any issue if I go back and add back in for Bibb, I already did it for Bryant since I follow that article. --Engineerchange (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've self reverted on Bibb, following our discussion here. I think clarification would be helpful to ensure the two align. Thank you for starting the discussion on Template:Infobox person and for our productive conversation here. Ensuring everyone is seeing the same information regardless of how they choose to edit is incredibly important in ensuring we can best work towards the same goals.
- On a similar aspect, I remember reading something a while ago regarding the use of the "Occupation" within the infobox and how it should match the article's lead. I've noticed a mismatch in several high-profile articles. By chance, can you recall such a rule? Wozal (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Very much agreed; it's always interesting to learn how others' editing process is slightly different than your own. I had never touched the visual editor before today. No, I don't know any rule there, but I'd be curious if you find one. I try to at least list the notable one in the lead, but I do get hung up a lot; for instance, with judges, should you list both lawyer and judge as their profession? It's confusing to me because the categorization for judges tends to supersede any categorization for lawyers. It's funny how the Wikipedia organizational schemas cause their own form of chaos. --Engineerchange (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- There have been a number of things which I've seen certain standards such as due weight and notability being confused, "rules of 3" (in which some seem to be convinced that if x person did more than 3 things, they must be listed for 3 (and not less), even if they are only known for 2 of them. It appears that some are unwilling to believe that people can be known for multiple things without needing to stuff the lead. As of recently, some have made the argument that serving in the military is always leadworthy regardless of rank or time served. However, I can't find any rules regarding either; nor is it something that I think can be brought onto that specific talk page since I think this would impact many pages. Wozal (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Very much agreed; it's always interesting to learn how others' editing process is slightly different than your own. I had never touched the visual editor before today. No, I don't know any rule there, but I'd be curious if you find one. I try to at least list the notable one in the lead, but I do get hung up a lot; for instance, with judges, should you list both lawyer and judge as their profession? It's confusing to me because the categorization for judges tends to supersede any categorization for lawyers. It's funny how the Wikipedia organizational schemas cause their own form of chaos. --Engineerchange (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, wow, I see your point. I don't use the visual editor. It seems like those descriptions are boilerplate text for any infobox. I'll start a thread on Template:Infobox person about it to get some traction. Also, as far as I know (from making some mistakes in the past), Infobox artist is a very separate beast. I think a similar community of editors frown upon infoboxes being included at all in some cases: the classical composer community, for instance (talk thread). Professional athletes (like NFL and MLB players don't even have spouse as an option in infobox), but I think Infobox person and Infobox officeholder have no disclaimer of notability for spouses in infobox; otherwise, it would noted on the template main page. Any issue if I go back and add back in for Bibb, I already did it for Bryant since I follow that article. --Engineerchange (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, I've never seen anyone remove spouses like this before, so I am curious what other edits you've seen like this. Are there any presidents without standalone articles? I don't see that note on Template:Infobox officeholder or in the couple places on Template:Infobox person regarding spouse, so maybe the comments you saw were from older versions of the template(s)? --Engineerchange (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024 at Women in Red
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
What are you doing with these categories?
editIt looks like you are removing a ton of categories which are correctly sorted. WP:EPON doesn't even apply in these cases. This is ruining the category tree for universities and schools sorted by location. You've done so many inappropriate category removals which do not reasonably fall under 4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @4meter4,
- The School's main article (which have been added; not removed) should indeed be within the categories. The School's category shouldn't be listed under the category per WP:PARENTCAT, which also states, " In other words, articles should rarely be placed in both a given category and any of its sub- or parent (super-) categories." The school's categories which also include alumni and faculty have nothing to do with the type of school it is or what state it is, but a people category might work better in that case. If the school's main categories were meant to be added within each category, around 85% of categories would be wrong.
- As it stands, the category tree for universities and schools by location isn't being ruined. Schools are still listed as a page for that location, as opposed to a select few being listed as categories.
- Also, before yelling or being accusatory, you should assume Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I think most of us are willing to discuss our perspectives.
- ETA: WP:EPON states, "An eponymous category should have only the categories of its article that are relevant to the category's content. For example:
Both New York City and Category:New York City fit well in Category:Cities in New York (state). The article New York City is in Category:Populated places established in 1624, but this category is not necessarily relevant to the content of Category:New York City, so it should not be used on the eponymous category. Individual works by a person should not be included in an eponymous category but should instead be in a sub-category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie."
- Applying those standards to schools, the article University of Jamestown is in the category of Category:Liberal arts colleges in North Dakota, but the category isn't neccessarily relevant to the content of Category:University of Jamestown which includes things beyond liberal arts colleges in North Dakota.
- Have a good day,
- Wozal (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 17
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tim Walz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Category:Universities and colleges in Washington County, Rhode Island has been nominated for merging
edit Category:Universities and colleges in Washington County, Rhode Island has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mason (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 10
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mike Rogers (Michigan politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Welcome to the drive!
editWelcome, welcome, welcome Wozal! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
edit 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)