Voorts
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Auto-archiving period: 5 days  |
 |
|
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
editGuild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
 Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators:
Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Recall Phase 2 A/E
editHi voorts, thanks for closing the recall Phase 2 proposals. After the post-close discussion and re-reading it, I think your close of one of the sections was wrong: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Desysop after Recall petition. You said there was significant numerical support for E, but I see less than 10 people supporting E out of 30 total, which doesn't seem like "significant numerical support" to me. (It also contradicts common sense: we can't have a crat opening up an RFA for someone who doesn't want to run again.) This "E thing" is causing some significant consternation, as can be seen at the various post-close discussions. Would you mind taking another look at that part of your close and modifying it? Levivich (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I noted that "This close is without prejudice to further refining option E." I think that's been done via the drafting of the final procedure, which I think is consistent with the close. I don't see a need to amend at this point, particularly since this is now getting an up-or-down vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- OK thanks for the quick response. It looks to me that the current language of WP:RRFA fixes this. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Unioninkatu
editI have now added more references to Draft:Unioninkatu and submitted the draft for review. JIP | Talk 20:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @JIP. I don't read Finnish and I can't access the book you've cited. I also noticed that you're missing a page number for cite 4. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- So what should be done now? The article needed more citations and now it has more citations. I don't have access to the source for cite 4 right now but I could try to read it at a library. Does the draft still need to be reviewed first or can it be moved to the article space once the cite is fixed? JIP | Talk 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you believe it is notable, you can move it to the mainspace if you'd like. Or, you can wait for a reviewer at AfC to take a look at the submitted draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- So what should be done now? The article needed more citations and now it has more citations. I don't have access to the source for cite 4 right now but I could try to read it at a library. Does the draft still need to be reviewed first or can it be moved to the article space once the cite is fixed? JIP | Talk 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello! You should not have included this article in Category:Fandom (website) wikis. The .co site (the Fork) has not been affiliated with Wikia/Fandom since it broke away in 2013. The .com site was abandoned by Wikia/Fandom in 2019 and has since gotten home-brew hosting. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Categories do not need to refer to the current status of an item within the category. Reliable sources refer to the connection between Fandom and Uncyclopedia, so it should be in that category. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there is a connection. But neither website is a "Fandom wiki" as the Category implies. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the category implies that either site is currently a Fandom wiki because being in a category doesn't imply that that characteristic is current. Additionally, there's no Category:Former Fandom (website) wikis. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
edit- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
editHi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Tamara (given name) review
editUtter non-sense to quick-fail an article of that size, everything could be done in a matter of a few days. That article had been months in the GA review list just for a bad reviewer like you to quick-fail it...The Blue Rider 
14:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Blue Rider This comment is out of line. You need to add at least 8 sources, and a copyedit is due. An article can also be quickfailed if "It contains copyright violations", which voorts' spot check indicates it does.
- It is a serious problem at Good Article reviews that people are unwilling to fail articles because they're worried people will come after them. I will review this article in a week so it won't stay sitting in the queue for months. Just keep a cool head, we do this for fun. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where exactly is it written that 8 sources are required? Some things might need minor edits, but the article is so short that it can be fixed in no time. Literally only ONE sentence was flagged for copyright; it’s ridiculous that lazy users can’t be bothered to actually review an article, they just quick-fail it! The Blue Rider 14:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I read the article and looked at the sources a few times, sat on it, wrote up an initial review, deleted that, repeated that process, sat on it again, admittedly forgot about this review, and then came back to it yesterday and only then quick-failed the nomination after reviewing the article and sources yet again. I quick-failed this nomination because the notable people list has 64 names in it, all of which need citations, and because I think that the article needs another two copy edits (including one by another editor), with a particular focus on sentence structure, as I highlighted in my review. I did not think that we could accomplish all of this through the GAN review process. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The list doesn't need sources at all? What even kind of sources would you need for that? That the people are named Tamara? Makes no sense, see Femke article which is GA, no need for sources on such list... The Blue Rider 15:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, the dates of birth and profession require citations to reliable sources. The reviewer of that GA also didn't raise this concern. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The list doesn't need sources at all? What even kind of sources would you need for that? That the people are named Tamara? Makes no sense, see Femke article which is GA, no need for sources on such list... The Blue Rider
- (edit conflict) I would probably have quick-failed the article too. Most of the issues voorts identified could have been found and fixed before nominating. That's the best way to avoid quick-fails -- to bring the article up to the GA criteria as well as you can before nominating. The resource that is in shortest supply at GAN is reviewing; nominations that unnecessarily increase the effort a reviewer has to put in are not helpful to the process. I see you're planning to renominate immediately; that's up to you, but I think you should address the issues voorts identified first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I read the article and looked at the sources a few times, sat on it, wrote up an initial review, deleted that, repeated that process, sat on it again, admittedly forgot about this review, and then came back to it yesterday and only then quick-failed the nomination after reviewing the article and sources yet again. I quick-failed this nomination because the notable people list has 64 names in it, all of which need citations, and because I think that the article needs another two copy edits (including one by another editor), with a particular focus on sentence structure, as I highlighted in my review. I did not think that we could accomplish all of this through the GAN review process. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where exactly is it written that 8 sources are required? Some things might need minor edits, but the article is so short that it can be fixed in no time. Literally only ONE sentence was flagged for copyright; it’s ridiculous that lazy users can’t be bothered to actually review an article, they just quick-fail it! The Blue Rider
Women in Red October 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging