User talk:Sdkb/Archive 10

Hello
Congratulations! Heads-up, the contrast in your signature is also off under the thing that I use to highlight admins(/superusers?). People (including me) might apprecitate it if you are able to find a combination that works with and without the blue that the script overlays. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Maliner (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! And thanks for flagging the concern with the script, Usedtobecool. When I designed my new signature, I wanted it to look similar enough to my old one to help others remember my identity, and with that goal in mind removing the blue background would unfortunately be difficult. Testing out the script, it looks like it highlights the "talk" part of my signature in blue but doesn't do anything with the "Sdkb" part (let me know if it's working differently for you), which seems like the desirable behavior in the situation. Cheers,  Sdkb  talk 21:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your username highlighted, white text on [light teal(?)] (close to RGB 150, 250, 250). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you tested on your userpage. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the transition period, this may work:  Sdkb   user / talk. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was my own customization getting in the way. That contrast is unfortunate. But ultimately, it's the responsibility of user scripts to play nicely with otherwise accessibility-compliant signatures and to not introduce accessibility issues, rather than vice versa. If it bothers you, I'd suggest making a suggestion to the maintainer of the script (or, even better, to code it yourself if you can) to have the script recolor text being highlighted when it would otherwise result in an insufficient contrast. Best,  Sdkb  talk 06:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But of course you have no policy obligation to accommodate editors who use optional features. As I said, it's something I might have appreciated, and potentially others, but ultimately, it is no more than an inconvinience to specifically me. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Followed up here, as it looks like @Theopolisme hasn't been active since 2019.  Sdkb  talk 17:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Congrats
Sorry for missing the RfA, but glad you got in, and congrats! DFlhb (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks!  Sdkb  talk 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I also missed it, but I knew you'd pass! Congrats on the mop. Also, very cool new signature. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, FormalDude!  Sdkb  talk 01:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Coolguy12340 (13:52, 25 February 2024)
Are you really my mentor? --Coolguy12340 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am.  Sdkb  talk 15:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Faerlynwiki (15:06, 27 February 2024)
Hello, mentor. I have never edited before so I thought I'd let you know what I wanted to do. I don't want to change anything yet, but I've found a mistake on the Pupstruction page so I want to talk to someone about. If Disney came up with the mistake I'll drop it. One of the dogs is described as a neopolitan mastiff but the dog in the show is NOT that breed of dog, I've owned and rescued this breed and the defining characteristics are simply not there. I'd like to change this. Is there a chat feature within this program? Thank you for being my mentor! --Faerlynwiki (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them.
 * To the extent possible, I'd encourage you to add a reference when you make the change, as it'll be more likely to stick that way. And talk pages are the closest we have to a chat function, but you could also get help on the Wikipedia Discord. Cheers,  Sdkb  talk 15:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

A bot to check DYK QPQ automatically
Hello. I'm sure you're very busy, but if you have the time, I'd love your quick thoughts here. Thanks in advance. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Commented there; thanks for letting me know about that thread!  Sdkb  talk 23:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Conference funding
Thanks for your note at Jimbo's talk page. I've mentioned more funding for conferences on his page at least a couple times, without a response, and have contemplated doing a Signpost article which would include large-scale further funding of conferences. Seems a touchy subject, Foundation funds are gathered by pushing Wikipedia to the forefront. It's the elephant in the room: the difference between what the Foundation should allot to Wikipedia matters and what it actually does.

As for conferences, the yearly world conference as well as the North American, Indian, European (I don't think they have a regular one), etc. should be a major recipient of millions of dollars of funding. For example, I attended November's North American Conference in Toronto, and give the organizing committee full credit for a wonderful conference with what they had to work with (I don't know the exact amount of funding allotted - maybe  and  and others could elaborate - for the conference itself, for scholarships, etc.). But the Foundation, especially after a literal four-year conference hiatus per covid, should have thrown money at it and asked "Thank you Wikipedians, what else can we do?". All conferences should have hundreds of full scholarships. Evening events should be held every night of the conference - full catered banquets, speakers including officials from the city/state/country, a panel of celebrities talking of how they view and relate to Wikipedia, a dance night with live music, etc. etc. These conferences are both educational connections for participants and celebrations of their work - and by celebrations I envision as far as it can be taken. For example, I've been advocating for a large North American conference in Las Vegas in 2026 for the 25th Wikipedia anniversary year, a major event to augment the Paris Wikimedia conference.

"Lack of funding" should be no barrier, Wikipedians as a group being the recipient of donations is an obvious use of funds. I bet with a proposal in-hand for fully funding these large world-and-continental conferences, combined with visits to a couple of local millionaires or billionaires, these things can equate with and rival the best conferences of other major organizations and professional gatherings. There is a large playing field not being played on, and your unanswered query to adds one idea to a what-can-easily-be scenerios in terms of tying Wikipedians into Foundation funding (as the public appeals strongly imply). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (a ping to the two other editors mentioned at Jimbo Wales' talk page: @Nadzik and @SGrabarczuk (WMF) and to our beloved Board Member and actual editor, who may have thoughts on this as well as on the VivaWikiVegas26 idea) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Update, left a note on the discussion at Jimbo Wales' talk page, and I've left a note of their page per this subject. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ella Honan (13:50, 29 February 2024)
Hello I am trying to get more information about myself and my acting I’ve done throughout previous years how can I get more information out? As there is bits and bobs on Google --Ella Honan (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Ella — our goal here is to write an encyclopedia about notable topics, not to help you promote yourself. Your user page is not an article, and we'd want one about you only if you meet the criteria at WP:NACTOR. Please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY regarding the conflict of interest you have writing about yourself. Best,  Sdkb  talk 14:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I bookmarked this page because of an above section I saw your enquiry Ella. The best you can do is collect your press and other media mentions and, when you think you have enough for a Wikipedia article, query again. You cannot write it yourself, but if there is ample coverage, and hopefully your career takes off like a skylark, there will come a time for a Wikipedia page (is the Survivor series a major series? If so, press should follow, especially if you have the magic ingredient: a good agent). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sdkb · The Night Watch
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg East718 · Isabelle Belato · Mzajac · Staecker · Stan Shebs · Sugarfish · Tamzin



Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SilkTork

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
 * Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news
 * The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
 * Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Re:e-mail
Hello! Sorry, I'm missing something about what you wrote...

Maybe it's just because I'm feeling tired. : D Oltrepier (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh man, you're right, haha!
 * I'll do it real quick, thank you for flagging it! Oltrepier (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So... now I genuinely feel like I forgot the birthday of a loved one. : D
 * By the way, congratulations on getting admin powers! Oltrepier (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have plans for Template:User's RfA?
User's RfA has no transclusions, which usually leads to deletion. Did you have a plan to use this template somewhere? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonesey95; thanks for checking in! The plan for that template was to use it in Happy Adminship so that it would link to the RfA. If I recall correctly, I couldn't get it to substitute properly because it required checking categories. I or someone else might figure out a way to adjust the code to make it viable in the future, so I would oppose deletion per the and has no likelihood of being used part of WP:TFD. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's really nice to see a message such as this @Jonesey95. Many times I have had stuff nominated at TfD and the nominator did not even bother to drop in and ask what the purpose is or what the future plans were, which always seems discourteous. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not always this nice. You caught me on a good day. When a template has been created somewhat recently by an editor I know to be mostly competent (I put myself in this category, with "mostly" as a very deliberately chosen word), I'll try to drop a note. If the template is ancient and unused, or recent and created by someone with just a few contributions, I usually send it straight to TFD. [ETA: The problem with courtesy is that unlike holding the door open for someone at the supermarket entrance, it can take a ton of time here on WP. There is so much garbage to clean up that sometimes the only way through it is to mass-process stuff in a cold, cruel manner and miss the one bit of useful creative work that was in the dross heap. I am always happy to withdraw a TFD or other deletion nomination for stuff that is useful.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jonesey95: I was skimming this about something else, and my eye got caught by mass-process stuff in a cold, cruel manner . I think I understand why you often see no better option, but I encountered a pretty prolific editor who also created an IMO harmful template. I succeeded to (kindly) show the author why I think it to be harmful, and he accepted the arguments and removed it himself (no TFD process needed). The expected advantage is he hopefully both gets a bit wiser, and stays prolific with (hopefully) good edits (and possibly future good templates too). I am glad to see you did something like that (in no cold, cruel manner) too here, and so I wish you a lot of (at least) similarly good days ;-) Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I try to be kind at least once a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request on draft Signpost op-ed on social apps/younger audiences
Hi! I'm working on an op-ed for the Signpost (gist: there's been a lot of attention on AI over the last year, but not as much attention on the other important socio-technical change that affects Wikipedia, the increasing popularity of getting information from personalities on social apps/platforms that cater to younger audiences). I've started a draft here – as someone who has been following the Future Audiences work and had some good feedback early on about the social apps space, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know what you think! Open to any/all feedback. Thank you!! Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Maryana; nice to hear from you! And that sounds like a very worthwhile op-ed for the Signpost! Taking a read, here are a few initial thoughts (feel free to take or leave whichever of them are helpful):
 * The comparison between how much attention we're devoting to AI vs. the desire for info from personalities is an interesting framing device. But given that the article is focused on the personalities issue, it might help to dial in on that as early as possible.
 * In the first bullet point, it seems you're talking in part about how editor attention has shifted, which doesn't seem to speak directly to the question you pose about reader attention.
 * I want to hear from you, English Wikipedians – as the groundbreaking community that, 23 years ago, revolutionized how knowledge could be shared and accessed online This feels a little weird, given that most Wikipedians today weren't editing 23 years ago.
 * The Basque Wikipedia example speaks to an attempt to pursue the "knowledge destination" approach. Is there an example of current work you could add that'd speak to the "free knowledge everywhere" approach? (Perhaps the sound logo?)
 * I recall from your WCNA presentation (sidenote: Is that online anywhere? I don't see it in the category) that you had the third "Internet's Conscience" approach. Was there a reason you left that out from the article?
 * Cheers,  Sdkb  talk 04:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much – this was all extremely helpful feedback, and I've incorporated your suggestions into a revised draft. (Also, thanks for catching that my WCNA slides never made it to Commons, ack! Uploaded and in the category now.)
 * If you have time for another read-through of the refreshed draft, I'd appreciate it (but no pressure – I know you're a busy VIP admin now! ) Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Peter I. Klock (22:17, 5 March 2024)
Hi, I just entered an article I published and presented at the WGMSC. I want to add it to Wikipedia. Please help me to take the next step. --Peter I. Klock (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter! The page at Help:Your first article has instructions for you. The material at your user page does not currently resemble an encyclopedia article and would need significant editing before it could be submitted.  Sdkb  talk 22:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Typo
Noticed that in your recent edits to Template:User WikiProject Music of Canada and Template:User WikiProject Country Music, you accidentally wrote "particpant" instead of "participant". Don't have time to scour your edit history to find anywhere else you may have made the same error, so I figured I would let you know so, if need be, you can fix it yourself when you get a chance. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 05:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Eek! Thanks for letting me know. I'll review and fix anywhere else with the typo.  Sdkb  talk 05:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be all fixed now! Please let me know if I missed anything. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 04:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Society
Great hook! Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @Viriditas! (For anyone else wondering, the hook is Did you know ... that the use of trade in prehistoric society may have given humans an evolutionary advantage over Neanderthals? It was chosen from among a few options.) Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 17:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like I should just give up and outsource all my hooks to you. Do you think being a professional journalist gives you some insight into how to create better hooks than others? And would you care to share some personal tips? Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha I am by no means the best hook writer — you should look to editors like @Theleekycauldron, who has compiled some great tips herself.
 * But writing hooks does share a lot of similarities with writing teases (the text in a social media post accompanying a link to a journalistic work). The biggest thing I notice is that people need to let go of the idea that a hook should describe the article comprehensively. People tend to write articles because they're interested in the topic as a whole, and that translates to an impulse to include as many details about it as possible in the hook. But those details don't tend to be interesting, and by the time you add the year/nationality/other info that might normally go in an article's first sentence, the hook is overly long and there's no room for the actual fun factoid. What I try to do is find the interesting factoid — the nugget of info where I go "hmm, I didn't know or wouldn't have suspected that," even if it's not otherwise a big part of the article. I then use that as the basis for the hook, stripping out everything not directly needed to support it.
 * For instance, in my currently nominated hook, the article is about a 2022 documentary directed by Violet Du Feng on the Chinese language Nüshu. But almost none of that is needed to support the interesting factoid — or in this case two, that it was a secret women-only language and that marketers tried to turn it into a branding device for high-end potatoes (which is actually only a brief moment in the film). So I stripped out "2022," "Violet Du Feng," the word "Nüshu" and even "Chinese". By distilling in that way, I was able to keep it a medium-length hook even with the double-factoid. Readers will get those details once they click through, and to some extent the omissions may even encourage it (e.g. if someone wonders which culture created this language, they have to click to find out).
 * I hope that helps! Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 01:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If I may bother you with a follow up question: how do you personally gauge interestingness? I recently was involved in a small discussion about this, and what I thought was an interesting hook, another found absolutely boring.  I would appreciate some insight into this specific problem.  I think what I like most about your hook up above is its brevity.  But would others find it boring?  I wouldn't, of course, but I'm curious how you bridge this somewhat subjective gap. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's certainly the perpetual question! And you're right that it's always going to be subjective. As best I can formalize it, interestingness derives from a fact being counter to what one might assume or guess. Most people don't propose marriage the same day they meet their spouse, most zippers don't weigh 1,500 pounds, and most concerts don't ask you to bring your own chair, so when I came across those things, I used them in my hooks.
 * A key element is that, because Main Page readers are a general audience, hooks need to appeal to someone with no special interest in the topic area. I think that a lot of uninteresting "first person to do X" hooks arise from forgetting this. The thought process behind a nomination of a hook like "... that Jane Smith was the first female train conductor in New Zealand?" is basically "I find New Zealand trains interesting, so this hook is interesting because it relates to New Zealand trains." But for general readers, who have no special interest in New Zealand trains, there's nothing surprising here — of course someone was the first female train conductor in New Zealand, so learning that they were named Smith doesn't change my perception of the world in any meaningful way, and I'm not likely to click.
 * Of course, there is an element of luck involved — some topics have a fact that leaps out (which journalists writing about it will typically use as a soft lead) and others don't. But even for relatively niche topics, you can stack the odds in your favor by doing deeper research — the Pete Sutherland fact above, for instance, wasn't mentioned in any of his obits, but turned up once I looked through the Newspapers.org archives. And for huge topics like Society, you can dig pretty much infinitely until you find something good. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. I will ruminate on it for several days until it sinks in and I become one with everything. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for your successful adminship!
Congratulations!!

Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 19:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>


 * Thanks! <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 19:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, congrats! :D –07:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Fpmfpm (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fpmfpm! <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb   talk 15:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Technical question
Thought you might have some insight on this. My first batch of FGTC proposals passed, one of which is combining the pages Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates & Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions.

How might I go about doing so, considering that both pages have (somewhat) extensive archives? I could just leave a merge request, but I find those tend to go un-answered for a while, and I'd rather just do this myself then force it into another editor's hands.  Aza24  (talk)   01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not too familiar with talk page merges personally. If the documentation doesn't provide clear instruction, perhaps posting at WT:MERGE or somewhere similar might draw the attention of someone who would know. Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 04:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ironically, looks like a thread already began there earlier this year, Wikipedia talk:Merging.  Aza24  (talk)   04:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

n.d.
i can't really disagree with the notability challenge. But the reason that I felt we needed a better landing space for this abbreviation was my own experience many years ago when I first came across it. I had no idea what it meant and no idea how to find out. Until I created the page, n.d. redirected to ND (disambiguation), where it languished imperceptibly in the See Also section, so even if someone did search for n.d., there was a very high probability that that would leave none the wiser.

In CS1 citations, we actively encourage editors to use it: when templates like sfnp are used, it is essential.

My first thought was to redirect it to APA style but there is no obvious landing spot there.

Can you suggest a better idea? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * A soft redirect for the Wiktionary entry would be my suggestion. Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it legitimate for the "article" n.d. to consist only of a redirect to Wiktionary? I didn't know you could do that (well I've only been editing for nearly 20 years. ) Yes, that would be ideal, how is it done? (Happy for you to point me at the Teahouse if it is not a trivial explanation.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, it can be done using Wiktionary redirect! <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * TYVM, sorry for any inconvenience. Another one added to my user:JMF.
 * Not a problem in the slightest! Sharing with each other is the main way to learn about a lot of the more obscure things on Wikipedia. :) <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirected to anchor
Hi,

I posted the suggestion the other day, and realized just now that putting together the two points raised in the comments I replied to actually yields quite a nice solution for how to apply this to anchors as well.

I added a mock-up to my current IP's talk space, starting from User talk:2A02:560:5829:B000:3035:7BA6:5759:C13C/User test/Origin page. The bolded wikilink goes thru a redirect to one of the anchors on the target page, which is a slightly edited copy of an actual article. The full "Redirected from" notice is accessible via the displayed at that anchor.

This one is hardcoded, of course, and is labelled "[note 1]" instead of something custom like "[Redirected here]", and clicking it jumps to the bottom instead of the top of the page, because putting the notes above the note tags apparently isn't allowed. But the functionality supplied by the notes system is an (in retrospect maybe not very) surprisingly good match for this scenario, with the ability to jump back and forth between the "top" and the redirect target as a pleasant bonus.

Could I trouble you to re-post this comment to the dev page? IPs can't post there, and I could not get Wikimedia's signup captcha to work despite trying multiple browsers.

Of course, if you notice any major issues that I overlooked, then do not do that last part! :)

- 2A02:560:5829:B000:3035:7BA6:5759:C13C (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Sorry to hear of the Captcha troubles. Sometimes ad blockers can interfere with them, so I'd suggest trying with those turned off, or checking from a mobile device if that fails too. It'd be helpful to have any details about how the Captcha is failing, as others are unfortunately probably experiencing the same thing, and we'd like to figure out how to fix it.
 * Accounts are extremely useful for communicating about development topics like this, so if you're able to create one I'd suggest using it to post yourself. As a last resort, I'd of course be happy to copy your comments over to Phabricator, but that'd make it harder for others to ask you follow-up questions, etc. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

N. d.
Dear colleague, I have marked the article N.d. as being under review, and boarded the plane. Upon landing I have discovered that you have removed my hatnote and replaced the article with a soft redirect. I have no problem with this resolution, although I was planning to redirect it to some abbreviation list or APA style and checking the sources for potential Abbreviations for citations. Still, the purpose of placing the under review tag was to gain few hours' worth of time for the flight. Next time, please let me complete the review. Sincerely, Викидим (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Викидим! Apologies for disrupting your workflow. I was following up from the discussion above (itself flowing from here), and did notice the under review tag but saw it was half an hour old, which is longer than NPP reviewers typically spend on a page. That template appears pretty obscure, and given that it provides meaningful info only to editors, not readers, I question whether it should be being used in mainspace. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Semaj Jr (02:28, 23 March 2024)
Hello how do I create an article --Semaj Jr (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * See Help:Your first article. Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;color:#FFF;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Thank you for converting the links I added into proper references. Could I ask how you do that? I'm assuming it isn't done manually. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @IOHANNVSVERVS! It's semi-manual, in that the tools try to fill in the references, but often need proofing or fixing. I used the Reference Toolbar to make that particular edit, but you can also use VisualEditor. Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;color:#FFF;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 20:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Hidden Letters
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Plopping for my records the |N%C3%BCshu pageviews link that includes Nüshu, which did even better than Hidden Letters. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 20:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting user right removals
Hello, I am requesting the removal of my Page mover and Pending change user permissions, thank you. Jerium (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not Sdkb, but I have fulfilled your request. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jerium (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Wag1weliz (23:37, 28 March 2024)
Good day How i could change a misleading front page brother. Would like to know thank you. --Wag1weliz (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Wag1weliz! If you're referring to the Main Page, errors can be reported to WP:ERRORS. Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 00:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Özcan gündük (21:25, 29 March 2024)
Resim eklemek ve profilimde meslek yazmak istiyorum --Özcan gündük (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Merhaba. Burası İngilizce Vikipedi. Görünüşe göre Türkçe konuşuyorsunuz, dolayısıyla bunun yerine Türkçe Vikipedi'ye katkıda bulunmak isteyebilirsiniz. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of PROD tag
When you decided to remove this PROD tag, asserting that sources exist, did you consider adding any sources? WP:DEPROD encourages editors to "Improve the page to address the concerns raised." Instead we are now left with an article with zero sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The text you're quoting is an encouragement, not a requirement. What is not merely encouragement is the instruction that PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 03:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Back here pestering
Hey, if you have the time/inclination, could I request a template alteration from you? I see that you made Template:FC pass talk message (great idea btw!). In helping reform WP:FGTC, our bot operator is going to add the template to the system for completed nominations. It works great with promoted featured topics, but the issue is promoted good topics (which, for obvious reasons, it doesn't support at the moment).

I'm seeing three possibilities here: (1) GTs are added as a fifth option, but that may be a little awkward to include (and the image would have to change, just for them). (2) A second template is created for just GTs? (3) I'm almost wondering if both FTs and GTs should be in a separate template, since the multi-star File:Cscr-featuredtopic.svg probably works better than the single File:Featured article star.svg for FTs anyways? Sorry to be rambling here.  Aza24  (talk)   19:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey Sdkb, wondering if you've had a chance to look at this?  Aza24  (talk)   23:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Aza; sorry for the delayed reply! That template is actually one of my prouder template creations — the editor retention value in having it vs. nothing shouldn't be underestimated. So I'm glad to hear you're looking to extend its use! I changed it so that the appropriate image is used for featured topics. It wouldn't be impossible to modify it to accept good topic nominations as well, but that'd go a little beyond its intended scope, and some of the other language wouldn't fit. So I'd suggest copying to a new template specifically for good topic nominations (which can be linked in the documentation as a "see also"). Cheers, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 03:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you! I will endeavor to copy the code over for GT-specific purposes. Thanks for adjusting for FTs!  Aza24  (talk)   03:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kbdank71 · Kosack · NrDg · TLSuda

Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
 * The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes.
 * An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
 * Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sexy primes
My impression is that 90% of the mathematical facts in these number pages are just anecdotal with no particular importance, and there is after all a wikipedia article about sexy numbers. But whatever. Vegan416 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, number pages are rather notorious for trivia content that goes against our general style (the dearth of good examples is part of the issue, as it's not clear what we'd replace the cruft with). The addition of the sexy prime factoid to 47 didn't really make it any worse than it already was, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I probably wouldn't have reverted if you'd included an appropriate source, and if you wanted to restore it with one, I wouldn't personally remove it again. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 16:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Endowment thing
Could you take a look at my latest edit on the university endowments article? Its my effort to contextualize the large endowments. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You mentioned a source in the edit summary, but don't appear to have included one in the edit. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the source is in the linked article, but I will make it explicit. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Help
Dear Sdkb, I would like some help for a draft article I have related to Prime Press. It is confused with the Prime Press, Inc while this is an all new publishing house created in 2019, Prime Press Ltd.

I see you have edited several publishers articles and have also experience.

Please give me a hand on this, also with fixing the logo case.

All the best Khufu2019 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Khufu2019, you were given good advice on your talk page; follow it. Your draft needs sources to establish organizational notability. Once that's resolved, we can address the disambiguation question. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I understand, but it was not easy to solve this case, I tried several times. It has just started the activity in the ELT market. It is enough even “ X is an educational …..based in …….”.
 * I am not requesting to skip any regulation, just finding a middle solution for this case.
 * thanks a lot for the sensibility and assistance Khufu2019 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only covers notable organizations. If this publisher has only just started operation, and has not yet received qualifying coverage, then it is likely too soon for it to have an article, and no amount of effort will be able to change that. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 21:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Aedipikiw (17:10, 13 April 2024)
what criteria is needed to make a good functioning article? --Aedipikiw (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Aedipikiw! See Help:Your first article. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 18:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much!! For your help
 * - Wikipedia backwards (almost) Aedipikiw (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)