User talk:Swpb/Archive/2019

Source assess

 * Thanks! I love the idea of expanding the table for more specific guides like ORGCRIT. I will try to find the time to do so. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 19:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Here you go: ORGCRIT assess / ORGCRIT assess table. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 20:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. I am not sure why but Category:Rationale templates does not show this new template that you created. Please check and add.
 * Another point is regarding the last line of the table WP:ORCRIT which notes the number of passing sources and notes that the requirement is multiple passing sources. Is it possible to automatically add the number of passing sources that pass all criterias and present a sum in the last line ? Not sure how complex this will be but, please consider and add if it is possible. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not easy to do with the present construction of these templates (or at least, I don't know of an easy way to do it). The ideal solution is to re-implement the templates with a Lua module, which will make them more flexible, but that will take more time. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ok. The current template as it stands right now is also very much usable. The summation can be done manually and added below the table for now. I will use it next time I need to use ORGCRIT, please see this example AFD I recently used the ORGCRIT table. As you can see and would appreciate the final sum table that calcualtes "MULTIPLE sources" is equally important and is actually one of the 5 criteria of ORGCRIT. So if you get some time free, do take a look at it if it would be possible to do some work around to add the last row in the table. Regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I definitely see the value in it. Just not sure when I'll get to it. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When you get time, please take a look at the bug i filed at Template talk:ORGCRIT assess table, the table cannot be used right now due to this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No bug, see template talk. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Alphonse Desjardins (anthroponymy) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alphonse Desjardins (anthroponymy). Since you had some involvement with the Alphonse Desjardins (anthroponymy) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R to anthroponymy page
Template:R to anthroponymy page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Redirects to anthroponymy pages has been nominated for discussion
Category:Redirects to anthroponymy pages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus' User Scripts
Dear all. Recently, our community lost a dedicated user,. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of Abelmoschus Esculentus' scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI
User_talk:Laser_brain KarlFrei (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly surprised, having been through one FAC. It takes a lot of work to get to FA, and the reviewers want to see that most of that work has already been done. Articles that attract controversy are especially difficult to get promoted, and if we did, front-page day would be absolutely insane. If none of that dissuades you and you want to give it a real go, I'd be in. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 17:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I'll skip it :-) I am pleased that the article has GA status and that is enough for me. I guess this article will get enough publicity as it is if states keep passing it. (As a side note, I am surprised that there is much more progress in 2019 than there was in 2017, right after the election. But I'll take it :-) ). KarlFrei (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Section transclude
Module:Section transclude has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Textile artists
Have extended the category by century to the 21st century e.g. Category:21st-century women textile artists Hugo999 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Chatham House Prize winners has been nominated for discussion
Category:Chatham House Prize winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of British royalty


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of British royalty requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages
Hi, This is a note to ask: would you be interested in submitting any articles for external, academic peer review to improve their accuracy and generate a citable publication?

The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) aims to couple the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, it's a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 04:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

CBT dab
I don't understand why you put Cognitive Behaviour therapy under "Other uses in science and technology" when its probably the primary topic. Can you please explain your reasoning or the relevant policies. I've posted some analysis on the talk page that suggests Cognitive behaviour therapy/therapies may be the primary topic. This should be uncontroversial given the first 100 results on google for CBT are related the psychotherapy. Notgain (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:LONGDAB. If it's truly the primary topic (I don't know, but I see you're getting pushback on the talk page), then it belongs at the top of the page, and again under science+tech. A section with one entry is not the right way to do it. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 02:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a little push back. I'll wait to see if others chime in after I posted my findings from counting the first 100 entries in the Google results. Notgain (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Good Marriage listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Good Marriage. Since you had some involvement with the The Good Marriage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of places of worship


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of places of worship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Biography dos and don'ts
Hi Swpb

Thanks for creating this wonderful page. So clear, and exposes a wikiproject. I've just used it in for assisting someone; and I expect success.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Media request templates
Regarding Media request templates, I made a minor edit to try to track down why a link wasn't showing up in the doc (which was confusion on my part over a redirect). The edit (changing a space-prefixed endash to a non-breaking-space-prefixed-endash) was correct per Manual of Style, which is why I didn't revert it myself after I resolved my issue. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 13:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would you think changing a dash to a template would resolve a broken link? And why would you change one dash and leave the rest on the page alone? — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 13:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a WP:NULLEDIT, an intentionally minor change for the purpose of causing the page to be re-rendered, and it wasn't a "broken link". Like I said, I was confused. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't have to make any changes on the page to do a null edit. Just click edit and save. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 13:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not last time I checked. I just tried it with this talk page and there is no record in the edit history. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:NULLEDIT before you pasted it at me? The point is to not leave a history entry, but to purge the page. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 13:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I surrender. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 13:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nucleus
Were Nucleus (operating system) an actual article, I would agree that clarification belongs there. However, Nucleus (operating system) is a redirect to Kernel (operating system). Unless there is some reason not to, I will change it to * Nucleus, similar to an operating system's kernel, but with some code running unprivileged and with some code running enabled for interrupts and in a task context. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a reason not to, which I already gave you. Dab pages are only supposed to have enough explanation to differentiate the entry from the other entries on the page, not to fully explain what each item is. If you want Wikipedia to explain what makes a nucleus different from a kernel, you can do so on Kernel (operating system) or turn Nucleus (operating system) into its own article. The dab page is the wrong place for this content. And please remember to use a level-2 header when you start a new discussion. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 18:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Articles by type of contributor has been nominated for discussion
Category:Articles by type of contributor, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: Reticule
I have reverted this page back to the disambiguation. Changing it to a redirect was incorrect, since the handbag was not the primary topic for "reticule". Both the aiming sight and handbag are potential topics for the word.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeated listings for primary topics on DAB pages
If you aren't already aware, I started a conversation to seek consensus on repeating primary topics at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and your original line of reasoning to allow it does have support in certain cases. In the interest of reaching a consensus/compromise, I invite you to weigh in if you'd like. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Balla Poster for "Casa d'Arte Bragaglia".jpg


The file File:Balla Poster for "Casa d'Arte Bragaglia".jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)