User talk:Abductive/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abductive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is 
Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
- Courcelles (submissions)
Kosack (submissions)
Kees08 (submissions)
SounderBruce (submissions)
Cas Liber (submissions)
Nova Crystallis (submissions)
Iazyges (submissions)
Ceranthor (submissions)
All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:
- Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
- Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
- Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.- Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Source referring to itself, a big no-no?
Hi, Abductive. I'm puzzled by your objection here. The idea that there are 32 symbol types is an analytical conclusion of von Petzinger, and should be described as her view rather than presented as a bare fact in Wikipedia's neutral voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Kanguole 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Every single sentence in the article doesn't mention the names of the researchers except that one. How do you explain that? Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- When we are reporting the scholarly consensus about something, we don't name the source we cite. If we mention one person's theory, we need to identify it as such, as explained at ATTRIBUTEPOV. Your edit inappropriately recasts von Petzinger's theory as a statement of fact. Kanguole 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- If it is one person's theory, it need to be removed from Wikipedia entirely as not the academic consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- When we are reporting the scholarly consensus about something, we don't name the source we cite. If we mention one person's theory, we need to identify it as such, as explained at ATTRIBUTEPOV. Your edit inappropriately recasts von Petzinger's theory as a statement of fact. Kanguole 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Ranks in taxonomy templates
Hi, it's always good to see the creation of more taxonomy templates to expand the automated taxobox system. Just a reminder that rank values should be lower-case Latin (Category:Taxonomy templates using capitalized rank parameters tracks templates that need to be fixed, which I do most days – 8 fixed just now). As far as I know, the system works ok with capitalized rank values, because internally it converts them to lower-case, but the size and complexity of the automated taxobox system and the fact that it gets added to from time to time all mean that it's not possible to guarantee that every use of the rank parameter will work with a value that begins with an upper-case letter. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I was wondering about that. I'll keep them lower case. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Coordinates
Hi there! Thanks for your edits to the coordinates at The Cock. Could you let me know the method you use to identify and format location coordinates? I usually find the location on Google Maps and copy the coordinates from there, but those were the ones you said were too precise; would be glad to learn another way! Thanks, Armadillopteryxtalk 00:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
POWO template
If you want a temporary "fix", you can use {{subst:User:Peter coxhead/POWO|taxon=TAXON|auth=AUTH|id=ID|style=stop}} for species and genera. This automatically adds the ref tags and the access date; use "comma" instead of "stop" for CS2 style citations. Thus {{subst:User:Peter coxhead/POWO|taxon=Prunus|auth=L.|id=30003057-2|style=comma}} generates <ref name="POWO_30003057-2">{{citation |title=''Prunus'' L. |work=Plants of the World Online |publisher=Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew|url=http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30003057-2 |accessdate=2020-06-25 }}</ref>. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Fern classification
Since the classification of ferns differs dramatically between sources, we had to choose one for article titles and hence species lists, and so, as noted in previous discussions at WP:PLANTS, etc., we use the PPG I system as set out in the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World. In this system, Trichomanes is one of eight genera in the subfamily Trichomanoideae, and we have articles on the other seven. Other sources, like PoWO, treat Trichomanes as the only genus in the subfamily, so subsume all the other seven genera into this one. Hence the two approaches have very different sets of synonyms for the genus, which cannot be mixed together. We need to use the same source/circumscription for the genus synonyms as for the species lists, otherwise we end up listing as synonyms genera for which we have articles, which is inconsistent. The list of synonyms you put at Trichomanes did just that because it was obviously based on the "lumping" approach.
The article text must, of course, discuss the two approaches, as it does. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have a little project to create an article or a redirect for all genera that start with F. I'll take a bit more care with ferns. What source is the best for diatoms and algae? Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know. (I ended up working on ferns largely by accident – they aren't of great interest to me. "Bulbs" and spiders are my real areas of interest and amateur expertise.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia more or less follows Algaebase's classification of algae. Coverage of species level synonymies on Algaebase isn't great. Because of this, Algaebase's list of species in a genus may be more a list of published names (a la IPNI) rather than accepted names (a la POWO). But there may not be a good alternative to Algaebase outside of digging through more primary literature (WoRMS derives their algae classification mostly from Algaebase). I've worked through Chlorophyta, red algae, and non-diatom Ochrophyta pretty well (and also cyanobacteria); all but a handful of existing articles should have taxonomy templates, and lists of subordinate taxa in family and higher level articles should adhere pretty closely to Algaebase. Charophyta, diatoms and dinoflagellates are the big alga lineages I haven't tackled yet. I'm not yet sure what ranks these groups should take. I did some work on diatoms recently and have a handle on what the options are at least. The diatom taxobox treats them as a class, while the Classification treats them as including three classes. Algaebase follows a 2016 classification by Medlin. Medlin treats diatoms as a Division (render as Phylum on Algaebase), including classes Bacillariophyceae, Coscinodiscophyceae and Mediophyceae and a subclass Fragilariophycidae in Bacillariophyceae. However, at least for diatoms, there is an alternative to Algaebase: Diatombase]. Diatombase provides the diatom classification used by WoRMS. Diatombase treats diatoms as a Class, including subclasses Bacillariophycidae, Coscinodiscophycidae, and Fragilariophycidae, which follows a treatment published in 2015 (there's a copy of this in the library at my institution, but I haven't examined it yet and I don't know when the library will reopen). At present, Wikipedia's diatom classification isn't consistent with either system. I'd been wanting to seek further input about whether to treat diatoms as a class or division/phylum. I'll probably get a better response by asking this on your talk page than at WP:ALGAE (although WP:TOL would be better yet). Diatoms: Class or Division? Peter coxhead? Anybody else? Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.
Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 
MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no interest in fighting over this, and I don't have access to that journal, but my source, that I can read, says "Democrats". If you read such journals you know as well as I do that many Democrats were indeed White supremacist killers, and that such killings were common in order to prevent Blacks from voting (for Republicans). Drmies (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You removed the NYT source calling it "asinine" to compare, however there's other info in the NYT piece too. While it is not a direct comparison, and I don't know that comparing it to a liger is useful in the WP article, that NYT article could be used for lots of information which could be added aside from the liger comparison. I'm just confirming that you would be okay with me using it as a source for other information still. Also, potentially saying something along the lines of "the NYT compared this hybrid to the more well known liger big cat hybrid" or something. Thanks. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is not Wikipedia's job to parrot clueless reporters' moronic statements. Abductive (reasoning) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- It actually is. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say, not on what your own research/opinion of the topic is. I think it's quite a non-issue though, as the only thing I plan to add that directly references "liger" is the comparison to ligers, mules, and other hybrids as sterile to further expand upon the sterility expectation for this hybrid fish. The title itself and a direct comparison to the liger I agree should not be in the WP article, but that does not mean it cannot be used as a source. And when used as a source, we are obligated to report the title of the source in the reference. If you have a problem with the source itself, please feel free to contact the NYTimes corrections department requesting they review the title. Apologies for my unclear beginning statement which may have made you think I would be directly adding the comparison made in the title, which I agree would be WP:UNDUE. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please forgive the tone at the beginning of the prior comment - coffee hadn't kicked in fully yet. I've also nominated this at DYK with credit given to you as well for your assistance in the current expansion. Any help you can give in further expanding/improving the article would be greatly appreciated. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- It actually is. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say, not on what your own research/opinion of the topic is. I think it's quite a non-issue though, as the only thing I plan to add that directly references "liger" is the comparison to ligers, mules, and other hybrids as sterile to further expand upon the sterility expectation for this hybrid fish. The title itself and a direct comparison to the liger I agree should not be in the WP article, but that does not mean it cannot be used as a source. And when used as a source, we are obligated to report the title of the source in the reference. If you have a problem with the source itself, please feel free to contact the NYTimes corrections department requesting they review the title. Apologies for my unclear beginning statement which may have made you think I would be directly adding the comparison made in the title, which I agree would be WP:UNDUE. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- In this edit you removed a NYT source for a much smaller source that didn't directly replace the sourcing for many of the statements the NYT was used as a source for, but you non-discriminately changed all NYT sources to the new source. I've reverted this because you have misrepresented the information in the scimag source and left many statements that had a valid, reliable source in the NYT without a source. Your personal distaste with the title/quality of the NYT article doesn't give you the right to remove it as a source for information, especially when you replace it with a source that doesn't include the information you're citing with the new source. The NYT source meets WP:RS, and your personal beliefs about language/"the truth" do not matter when it is verifiable in a reliable source. If you continue to remove this reliable source, and especially if you again replace it with a source that does not meet WP:V for information, I will seek administrator intervention. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
- L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.- MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
- Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
June/July 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
- June and July 2020—Issue 015
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
|
|
| News at a glance |
|
| Categorizing life with DexDor |
|
DexDor is a WikiGnome with a particular interest in article categorization, including how organisms are categorized.
|
| June DYKs |
|
_Gazella_tilonura.png)
| July DYKs |
.jpg) Amazon parrot  Life reconstruction of Pterodactylus antiquus
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Automatic archiving
Just letting you know that this was brought up a few months ago and I have since fixed it. Mass messages aren't automatically signed, and I didn't realize that not including a signature would prevent automatic archiving. Enwebb (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Sturddlefish
On 17 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sturddlefish, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that scientists accidentally created a hybrid of two endangered fish species, called the sturddlefish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sturddlefish. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sturddlefish), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Coordinates
Regarding this edit, yeah, I know, that's a problem. What I generally do is pull up the location on Google Maps and copy-paste the lat-long from the URL bar. I'd love to see some kind of software support which automates this repetitive and error-prone task. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I use Wikimapia which allows toggling between Google, Bing and OSM. It has a reticle and constantly displays the coordinates which can be easily copied. Abductive (reasoning) 20:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Little question
Hi Abductive, two questions really. I note you've sicced a bot on Protea foliosa in this diff. here. Thing is, I had another draft floating around. I can/have easily copy & paste your changes to the draft. First off this: |last1= vs. |last=, does that really matter? I don't see a difference in how it renders the page. Second this: Category:Taxonbars desynced from Wikidata, what does that mean? I don't see anything changed in the 'taxonbar'. Succinctly, if I c&p your changes to the old draft, will I screw something up? Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Leo Breman: The bot makes changes based on whatever the guys who maintain it think are correct. I suspect that there may be an effort to systematize the collection of data from Wikipedia articles. The changes the bot makes are supposed to be for our convenience, so c&p if you like. People are activating Citation bot on 100s of articles at a time, so eventually the edits will be made. As for taxonbars desynced from Wikidata, if the article is not listed on Wikidata, towards the bottom, it is desynced. After I create an article, I click on the Wikidata link in the taxonbar, check I got the correct Q number, and add my article to the list of Wikipedias. Or you can just wait for the bot on Wikidata to do it. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right, I get what you're saying. Thanks for the explanation. I'll double-check that last part when I'm done. Leo Breman (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
What are you trying to do?
You are running citation bot using the linked pages API. What is your goal? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @AManWithNoPlan: Well, there is a war heating up there, so the articles involved needed maintenance. That option appeared a few days ago, so I assumed it was ready for primetime. Is it conflicting with what you are trying to do? You can shut it off if need be, the remaining edits are not important to me. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not really a big problem (just making sure that you were not accidentally using it). In the the future, you might try to limit to one linked page at a time. For some reason, the bot loses connection with many (all?) peoples web browser during long-runs, so you have you to actually watch the bots contributions page to see when it is done. To help control it, I will change it so that it only runs on "User:" space articles so that people think about it a bit more, or maybe copy and paste all several articles into a single temporary User: sandbox page. That will keep that bot from running over the same page several times (I assume that some of the pages are linked from more than one page). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @AManWithNoPlan: Interesting. I close the activation page after I start a run. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not blame you for closing it. It does not provide any output. It is supposed to, be we switched to a high-performance server and now it does not give output until done and naturally, your web-browser gives up anyway. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @AManWithNoPlan: Interesting. I close the activation page after I start a run. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not really a big problem (just making sure that you were not accidentally using it). In the the future, you might try to limit to one linked page at a time. For some reason, the bot loses connection with many (all?) peoples web browser during long-runs, so you have you to actually watch the bots contributions page to see when it is done. To help control it, I will change it so that it only runs on "User:" space articles so that people think about it a bit more, or maybe copy and paste all several articles into a single temporary User: sandbox page. That will keep that bot from running over the same page several times (I assume that some of the pages are linked from more than one page). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
question for you about citation bot
I have no problem with you running on categories, but it seems like they are sometimes odd choices, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_math_errors These are not things that the bot can fix. It does run over a bunch of random pages, which is a good thing, but still curious why. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will admit that such categories do often imply a poorly maintained page that could probably use some bot-love. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. I'm looking for ways to improve articles. It's even possible that by the bot calling out these issues in the edit summary, human editors might take notice and try to fix the issue. Abductive (reasoning) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's actually a cool approach. "Fixing X and Y, but leaving Z unfixed" :-) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please wait until one category is done before starting the next at this point, so others can use the bot too. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's actually a cool approach. "Fixing X and Y, but leaving Z unfixed" :-) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. I'm looking for ways to improve articles. It's even possible that by the bot calling out these issues in the edit summary, human editors might take notice and try to fix the issue. Abductive (reasoning) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
because it's nice, I guess. NinjaWeeb (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Move review for Lekki massacre
An editor has asked for a Move review of Lekki massacre. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 00:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Snow close at Lekki Massacre
Would you be willing to reopen your NAC at Talk:Lekki Massacre? A majority of the keep !votes are from SPAs who are using WP:OR to justify their position. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 23:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- They're SPAs because they are Nigerians who never felt the utge to edit Wikipedia until they saw that move banner. Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. But as SPAs, they are most likely unaware of WP:NCEVENTS, which states that the year should be present in the title and that
If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
Most of the keep !votes used WP:OR as their rationale. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 03:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)- It would be best to wait a few months to revist the issue. Abductive (reasoning) 17:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you reopen the RM since it was not by definition a SNOW closure and so should be allowed to run at least seven days. When you do that we will be able to close the move review procedurally. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aligned with an immediate re-opening of the RM. The fact that many or some people refer to it as a massacre doesn't make it so. Has it been verified that the soldiers shot at the protesters or in the air? Do the facts available confirm that more than 2 people died? Is the evidence clear that the 2 deaths are from gunshot wounds? Until there's irrefutable evidence of a massacre, I don't think we should call it so. "Lekki Shootings" seems as accurate as it gets for now.--Bioye (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you reopen the RM since it was not by definition a SNOW closure and so should be allowed to run at least seven days. When you do that we will be able to close the move review procedurally. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- It would be best to wait a few months to revist the issue. Abductive (reasoning) 17:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that. But as SPAs, they are most likely unaware of WP:NCEVENTS, which states that the year should be present in the title and that
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were 
Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), 
Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
- Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
- MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for your Citation bot help on Jiz Lee! What do you think of the article's recent expansion and improvements? Right cite (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Let's continue talk page discussion here due to a stalker. I took your suggestions to heart. What do you think of this now [1]? Better? Right cite (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I made some minor adjustments. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Abductive, looks good, thank you! Right cite (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I made some minor adjustments. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyrights
Hi! Spot checking some links added in this[2] edit, some links appear to be to copyright violations on semanticscholar (e.g. to a PDF downloaded from JSTOR of this). Is this right? Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good catch. Abductive (reasoning) 08:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Or is it? I thought semanticscholar was generally okay. Maybe they have some kind of agreement with Science? I'll take it up at the OABot talk page ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Watling Street coordinates
What was inappropriate about giving a set of coordinates for a point on this route? Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear is a bit vague on best practice, but some form of geolocation seems better than none. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- A route map would be best. Coordinates at some random point along the street are inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 12:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, a route map would be great. But a coordinate of one point (Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear suggests the midpoint or "most significant point") is much better than nothing, and means that the API can at least tell people something about where it is. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- The coordinates pointed to a random spot. I was looking at Canterbury to try and figure out where the five roads came together as a potential site for the coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 00:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, a route map would be great. But a coordinate of one point (Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear suggests the midpoint or "most significant point") is much better than nothing, and means that the API can at least tell people something about where it is. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't replace publication-place
Hi Abductive, in this edit ([3]) you changed a |publication-place= parameter into a |location= parameter in a citation. Please don't do that, they are not the same. By changing the parameter you are invalidating the information in the citation. |publication-place= is, obviously, for the publication place, and |location= is for the written-at-place. (The mixup is likely because in the past |location= was a parameter used for both.) Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have passed your complaint on to the Citation bot's talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 09:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Christine Fang
Your recent editing history at Christine Fang shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Forevertruthsayer has been blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waskerton/Archive. Your edits seem appropriate. Travelmite (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Pimelea prostrata
Yeah I think even with the 5 subspecies it wont excede 10,000 words so perhaps you are right. I would still like to have the information on the species article so do I just have a section for each under the header: "subspecies?" Beeveria (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merge proposals
Probably telling you to suck eggs (so to speak), but ... A reminder when proposing a merge to both start a discussion on the talk page and add merge templates on both the target and source; these steps seem to have been missed on, for example this edit. I also note that that proposal (which I've closed, given that there was no support for more than 6 months), was also not formulated to consider the 9 other constituent colleges, each of which has their own page. In such cases, it's probably best to consider a compendium proposal, if proposing at all. Klbrain (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)