User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2018/February

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
 * Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news
 * A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Invasion! (Arrowverse) copyedit
Miniapolis, I was puzzled to see that you removed the blockquote tags for a number of very long quotes in this article. Per WP:Blockquote, if the quote is longer than about 40 words, then it should be blockquoted. If these very long quotes had been paraphrased, as I was urging in the GA review at Talk:Invasion! (Arrowverse)/GA1, then they would have been shorter; instead, you have the Ed Gross quote, which runs 111 words. It may or may not be fair use, but it's certainly blockquote length and then some. Is paraphrasing not in the copyeditor's remit?

I did notice that Favre1fan93 (the original GA nominator) removed a number of your added inline source citations (and two of the citation needed templates), presumably because they don't feel the need to cite a quote at its end so long as the next citation, however many lines away, is from the same source that the quote came from. What you did is, of course, correct, and the citations/templates need to be added back in. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IAR on the quotes. Although the guideline stipulates 40 words or so, I've copyedited many pop-culture articles and this is the first one I've seen with reviews formatted as block quotes (which, IMO, violates WP:WEIGHT by unduly emphasizing a subjective evaluation); it was also a concern of the person requesting the copyedit. Paraphrasing quotes in an article I'm copyediting (as opposed to recasting a sentence already in prose) is above my pay grade; any editor can do that, and I'd be pleased to copyedit the results. What happens next is up to the GA reviewer, since I'm working on another request as time permits. All the best,  Mini  apolis  16:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11
Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Tóc Tiên
First of all, thank you for your edits on the article.

I noticed you've used a lot of brackets, and thought some of them were quite unnecessary. Example: "Tiên made her first high-school tour (Tóc Tiên và những giấc mơ)". "Tóc Tiên và những giấc mơ" was the concert's name, I don't really think it should be written like that. And "Ho Chi Minh City Medicine and Pharmacy University's Faculty of Medicine" too. Pardon me, but I've never really seen articles using brackets like this before. I think it's because I usually stuffed quite a bit in one sentence, but if you can, please separate them instead of using brackets.

English is obviously not my native language. I'm only trying to give some constructive comments. Please don't be mad.

P/S: Also can you explain why "music video" became "music-video", and why is the second picture so big? Beyoncetan (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't request a copyedit (which implies general article improvement; see MOS:BRACKET and MOS:COMMA) if you don't really want one; WP:VOLUNTEER, and I don't want to waste my time. If I were a non-native Vietnamese speaker, I wouldn't presume to correct a native speaker. Separating long sentences without an occasional parenthesis results in lots of commas (not recommended) or short, choppy sentences (which won't help you at GA). I made the picture a standard thumbnail because it was too small to see well, especially on a mobile device; there's another image with the same problem. In the header "Music-video appearances", "music-video" is a compound adjective. Since you're obviously dissatisfied with my work, I'll leave a note of where I left off at WP:GOCE/REQ and another copyeditor can finish the article.  Mini  apolis  23:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Nuber, and anchor
Hi. Thanks a lot for CE on Philip W. Nuber. Especially for the section of "Air Force career". I was having a real difficult time handling that.

Also, what is anchor? I visited the man/doc page, but didnt understand anything. What does it do exactly? Would you put it in simple words please?

Also, I changed your edit in the lead section. DMA was not part of NGA. There were few different agencies/organisations including DMA, and National Photographic Interpretation Centre, that were seperate from each-other. Then these (I think 8) agencies were merged together. This newly formed agency was named NIMA, which was later renamed to NGA. NGA's current article is sort of mess too. Currently, it is beyond repairable. I am working offline on a new article, "history of NGA". Once it is halfway done, I will upload it in my userspace, and then have discussion on talkpage of NGA, and WP-milhistory

Thanks a lot again. Kindly ping me while replying. — usernamekiran (talk)  02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , glad you saw that I finished the copyedit (I was AFK watching TV) and thanks for fixing my mistake in the lead. You're right about the anchor documentation, which is about as clear as mud. I use the tag when changing a section header; it's less important with a new article like this, but with an older article clicking on an "old" link will still take a reader to the renamed section. Wish I could help more with the technical stuff, but I know what I know :-). Good luck with the NGA history article and all the best,  Mini  apolis  03:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks. One needs good wishes with that NGA article lol. Does that mean, anchor is used for redirecting to section whose title has been changed? — usernamekiran (talk)  03:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's the only place I've seen it used instead of a bracketed wikilink to a section with a hashtag, but others may use it elsewhere. I think it brings HTML stuff into play, but I don't know what :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Refbloat
Hi, thansk for the CE of Lord Howe swamphen, which is looking really good so far. I have one concern, though, you are removing citations from the ends of paragraphs due to "refbloat", but the result is that not all the information contained in said paragraphs is supported by citations now. Surely, this is not the intention? The many citations present are there because they support different parts of the text, not to cite the same info multiple times. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the poke. Feel free to put them back, but there shouldn't be more than three citations at the end of a sentence. I've noticed that the article tends to group citations at the end of a paragraph; it would be better to have one to three citations at the end of whatever sentence they cite than to pile them on at the end. I'll leave the rest alone, and apologize for any inconvenience; it's a very good article, and the image placement is perfect. All the best,  Mini  apolis  17:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll see if I can spread them out, but I've never seen anyone suggest more than three refs was too much, can you point me to where this is stated? Refbloat mainly seems to be about redundant/repetitive refs, as I read it... FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the WP:REFBLOAT essay, "A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided; if more than three are truly beneficial as an additional range, consider bundling (merging) the citations." Bundling several citations, as needed, is a good workaround. All the best,  Mini  apolis  18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What does bundling mean here? FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BUNDLING and Help:Citation merging explain it better than I can; basically, it's a bullet list of citations within a citation. I've seen the markup, which looks like a bit of a PITA but is doable. This article has a very mild case of refbloat, though, and it would be much easier to distribute the excess citations as appropriate within a paragraph. Or you can leave an extra two or three cites at the end of a paragraph if you want. I've seen GA reviews, especially of non-pop-culture articles, that were mini-FAC reviews (which, IMO, is a problem with a one-editor review); it depends on who you get. I hope to finish the copyedit today, and will ping you when it's done. All the best,  Mini  apolis  18:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll see what I can do once you're finished. For the record, I've earlier nominated a bunch of FAs which had more than three citations in places, but no one commented on it, such as Elasmosaurus, Istiodactylus, and Giganotosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, and I'll keep that in mind; long strings of citations seem to be more of a problem in contentious articles, as the essay mentions.  Mini  apolis  18:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)