User talk:Mxn/2016

DYK for Girolamo Maiorica
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Question
RE the DYK nom, the first source indicates that of the 14 surviving manuscripts 13 can be attributed to Maiorica, but later on another source states there are 15 works by him in the Nom (sorry I cant do special chars at the moment) language in the Museum. Is this a case where the sources themselves conflict? Or is there a translation issue do you know? Its only a little thing I know. I was wondering if the first was written before/after more or less were attributed to him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question. First of all, rereading Ostrowski (2010), I'm coming to the conclusion that this source was originally misinterpreted in the article. He's saying:


 * (From the prose) Of the 14 works that have been found, 13 are definitely by Maiorica alone.
 * (From the footnote) These 13 works are the only ones that have a known author.

The editor who originally used this source at the Vietnamese Wikipedia misunderstood the phrase "the extant works of Maiorica" to refer to "the extant works, which were authored by Maiorica", rather than "the extant works that were authored by Maiorica". I think this explains the error about saying "all" originally that unfortunately crept onto the Main Page.

That section with the "15 works" claim appears to have been subject to some clumsy reference juggling at the Vietnamese Wikipedia before I translated the article. I've tracked down the intended source for those claims, Lã Minh Hằng (2013), but you're right that there's an inconsistency in the source material. (Hằng is a scholar of chữ Nôm literature at the Institute of Hán-Nôm Studies, which has been doing active research on Maiorica's works over the past several years.) I guess it's possible that a new work had been attributed to Maiorica between 2010 and 2013 – what do you think the article should say? – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my bad: the Vietnamese Wikipedia article apparently did interpret the source correctly, saying that all the attributed works were attributed to Maiorica, but I had misunderstood the phrase and dropped the extra qualifier when translating it to English. – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 15:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiConference North America
Hey Minh - good to see you in San Diego. I guess since you're not too far from SF, maybe I'll see you again in-person sometime. See you around! -Ben II  | (t - c) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:WXIX News 1993.png
Thank you for uploading File:WXIX News 1993.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Added the requested information at WXIX-TV. – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit you made, but that is does not seem to be any sourced discussion of this particular screenshot itself. A non-free image does not really need to be seen for a reader to understand the station changed its on-air branding from "19XIX" to "Fox 19(...)." What is needed is discussion of the screenshot itself, perhaps something about how it was unique in it's design or or something like that, and that content should be added to the article. Citing a caption which simply says the station changed it's call letters or branding on so and so date is something which can be more than adequately explained in text per WP:NFCC. Moreover, if the image is removed, then the caption/source would go with it as well. With nothing in the article about this particular screenshot and it's importance to the reader's understanding, the screenshot could be removed without being detrimental to that understanding per WP:NFCC. Anyway, I'll bring this to WP:FFD to see what others think. Yje discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 18. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:German-language newspapers published in Cincinnati has been nominated for discussion
Category:German-language newspapers published in Cincinnati, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)