User talk:Maddy from Celeste

Sometimes I go on a wikibreak, and a variety of templates have been seen here to that effect. However, I usually only care to add a template when I am already on my way back from a break. Therefore, if you are in doubt whether I am currently active, check my contributions. Even if I don't edit, I remain logged in when reading, and will thus see (and try to respond to) any messages left here.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, you may post a new message linking to me ({{Ping|Maddy from Celeste}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to you watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may post a new message linking to your username, so you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them!

Archives

Index

Archive 0

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Question from Gj2020 (20:16, 7 October 2024)

Hello Maddy, I need some help with a new article of mine. i created 2 article and both of them were declined due to lack of sources, so this time i want your help to see if the current article meets all the Guidelines then i will submit it for review. let me know if this is possible. thank you --Gj2020 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gj2020: I'll look at Draft:Study Table first. Chances are, once you've got your first article accepted, you will understand how to write more. Firstly I'll have to say I disagree with the reviewer on it being a WP:DICDEF (a dictionary definition for those who aren't fluent in Wikipedianese), as you do go to some depth beyond what a normal dictionary would. Anyway, that's not the main point here, but notability is (read that guideline carefully many times if you want to write articles!). The gist of it is, you need to show there's some existing literature on which you can base an article on study tables.

You currently have several sources that specifically discuss study tables, that's good! However, they seem to be random educational websites and lecture slides. That's not bad per se, but I think it would strengthen the article to have some academic sources – journal articles or books. Presumably those exist, since that's likely what the sources you have now are based on – check if they cite their sources. Are you studying this subject at school or university? In that case you could ask your teacher. Also if you attend school or university, it's likely that you can get access to some databases (for example, JSTOR, if you've heard of that) to search for academic sources. Ask your librarian about it. If not, I can also use some of the resources I can access through The Wikipedia Library so try to find your some sources. (If you stick around and edit for long enough, you too can get access to it; it's a great resource!)

You should also consider cutting some of the more redundant material. If I was to review this article and it started by telling me that tables have legs and a tabletop, I too would question whether that really is a necessary article. Focus on what our readers don't already know. This can also be connected to my previous point, as academic sources are likely to consider deeper aspects of the topic.

I hope that helps. Reply to me if anything I said needs clarification, you have more questions, or you have trouble finding sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's not formally a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but these days it's an unwritten norm to have inline citations (footnotes) everywhere – I'd suggest at least one per paragraph. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help once again. I'm currently reviewing Wikipedia's notability guidelines as you said and trying to determine if the subject "study table" qualifies for a stand alone article. The guidelines says, "if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find sufficient independent, reliable sources most of the available sources are product websites, which don't meet the notability criteria. So I'm not sure if I should continue working on the article or not. Gj2020 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gj2020: I'd wager that study tables, as a very common piece of furniture, are notable enough for an article. The problem most likely lies in finding the sources needed. A general-purpose search engine is often not the best place to look for sources on many topics, precisely because you will find a lot of product websites and so on. There exist specialized search engines that are better for searching for sources. Most require paid subscriptions, but Semantic Scholar is free to use, you can try that.

I've used some tools available for me to find a couple of possible sources. If you can't find the full text to these, email me and I'll send it to you. You can also look in the references of these and other sources you find, to look for more topical sources.

Yanfeng Miao, Shuqi Yan, Wei Xu. The Study of Children’s Preferences for the Design Elements of Learning Desks Based on AHP-QCA. BioResources [Internet]. 2024 Apr [cited 2024 Oct 8];19(2):2045–66
Zaugg H, Belliston CJ. Assessing old and new individual study desks. Performance Measurement & Metrics [Internet]. 2020 May [cited 2024 Oct 8];21(2):93–106

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation on Semantic Scholar it was really helpful! Also, I appreciate the two sources you provided. I improved the article, but I did my own research again and didn’t find anything useful. Please check it when you have time. Gj2020 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion for you. Consider leaving the draft be for now, and adding to Desk § Student models first. When you are new to Wikipedia, it's better to start out by editing existing articles for a while; it gives you a kind of intuition for how an article should look. Then writing articles will be easier afterwards. When writing, start with a few of the highest-quality sources you can find. This usually means books, journals, etc. Maybe newspapers, depending on the topic. Read those thoroughly and summarize them. Then, look for more similar sources, through their references (source list at the end of academic publications), or by other means, and repeat. Did you get access to "Assessing old and new individual study desks"? If not, e-mail me. Its references look very promising for your research. Also, it introduces two key terms, carrel and indivisual study desk, both referring to a kind of study desk, which should be useful in finding more information. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, will do as you say for now. And thank you so much for all the help. Gj2020 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move closure questioned

Hello Maddy. You recently closed the requested move of Chevalier d'Éon ⟶ Chevalière d'Éon as moved, with only a single vote in favor in the § Survey section, and lively, unresolved discussion in the § Discussion section. This article is in a contentious topic area, the closure lacked a closing statement, and this just seems like too thin a margin to evaluate as 'consensus to move' under these conditions. Would you consider either relisting it or altering the result to § No consensus? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it like that. Firstly, the contentious topics designation obviously has no impact on the determination of consensus in discussions. Secondly, the lively discussion had come to an end, with your interlocutor saying: I'm probably not going to respond to this any further as this conversation does not seem to be productive at all; and you digressing about linguistics. It is also not quite right to say there was only one editor in support of the move; Relmcheatham, who opened the discussion, obviously also wanted to move the article, and AmphibiousThing2 also provided arguments in favour of moving. In my opinion, this numerical majority, in addition to an evaluation of the arguments based on policy and sources cited, shows a consensus to move. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a topic is contentious, I think it does matter, and two editors in favor, and a hundred editors not having seen the discussion nor taken part in it, what is their opinion about it? In my opinion, it is highly premature to conclude that two editors here constitutes a consensus about a contentious, GENDERID-related move to overturn an eighteen-year stable consensus. What's the rush? There is no deadline. At a minimum, it should have been relisted for further input. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ran for the standard seven days. There is no provision to alter that depending on the topic of the article in question. At the end of the seven days, productive discussion had terminated, and a consensus was apparent – thus, no reason for relisting. If that's all you have on this, I don't think I will change my mind, but I have nothing against being proven wrong at WP:MRV. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rococo Revival RM

Hi, your close found no consensus for the proposed move. While the votes in this case were evenly split, a no consensus finding would indicate you found that the arguments made to support or oppose were equally strong. Could you please expand on how you assessed the strength of the arguments. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLEFORMAT are both valid considerations when choosing an article title. In fact, TITLEFORMAT says it is "used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles"; consistency is one of those five principles. In such a case, I as a closer cannot myself decide which consideration is more important, and I don't think the numbers were decisive enough either. In addition, editors disagreed on whether the most commonly recognizable form is capitalized or not. Again, I do not think either side won enough support over the other to declare a consensus. My suggestion here is, as stated in the close, to examine the other revival style articles and their sources. If many of them really should be lowercased, consistency would not weigh much in the evaluation anymore. Conversely, if most of those are correctly capitalized, maybe it's fine that Rococo Revival also is. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maddy. You would consider that WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLEFORMAT are both valid considerations when determining the capitalisation to be applied to a particular article title (as opposed to the wording). Per WP:RMCIDC: Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. Per WP:NHC: The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. It also refers to reasonable arguments.

The meaning of WP:CONSISTENT is not contained in the word consistent (as argued) but in the explanation therein (both directly and through supporting documentation invoked therein) and the fuller context of WP:AT. WP:CRITERIA states: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistency, below.). Topic-specific naming conventions are listed in the sidebar at WP:AT. The section Consistency further directs to WP:TITLECON, which explains that it refers to documented topic-specific conventions on article titles. This fits back into WP:CRITERIA. WP:NCCAPS is a naming convention linked from WP:LOWERCASE (at WP:AT). In turn, it invokes MOS:CAPS. While the Nom (and others) did not specifically refer to the link from WP:AT to MOS:CAPS, a person reasonably familiar with the prevailing P&G should be aware of this.

You correctly observe WP:TITLEFORMAT states: The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles [emphasis added]. This is telling us that the points therein (including WP:LOWERCASE) are requirements over and above the five criteria and have precedence over the criteria. Considering the P&G in full, there is no reasonable inconsistency, contradiction or exception that would cause WP:CONSISTENT to have any precedence over WP:LOWERCASE on a matter of capitalisation.This RM also attempted to use the WP:CONSISTENT argument and might be enlightening. Where we have a multi RM for capitalisation, the evidence is considered on the individual merits (see here). As seen in the link discussion, some articles in a multi RM may be moved while others are not - depending on the individual merits. It is the role of the closer to determine whether an argument is reasonable and discard those which are not - such as a fallacious pettifogging misrepresentation of the spirit and intent of the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you that your reading of the policy on consistency is the only correct one. As you quote, the consistency criterion per se is: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. It is further explained that many such patterns may be found in topic-specific naming conventions. This explicitly does not imply that consistency is only an argument where there exists a topic-specific naming convention. § Consistency does indeed directs to WP:TITLECON, but you are omitting crucial context: it directs to TITLECON [f]or examples of Wikipedia practices regarding consistency in article titles. Neither WP:NCCAPS nor MOS:CAPS offers specific guidance on artistic periods or movements, and SMcCandlish correctly notes that these often are capitalized.

As for the scope of TITLEFORMAT, I am quite certain you've got it backwards. [O]n questions not covered by the five principles situates that section in a subsidiary position to the main criteria: the five criteria are applied first, and then, if any questions remain unanswered by a throrough analysis of them, TITLEFORMAT is applied. In this case, according to those who favoured capitalization, the capitalization question is answered by consistency, and therefore LOWERCASE never appears in the evaluation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLEFORMAT is telling us about things we should or should not do even though a proposed title determined by applying WP:CRITERIA might initially suggest otherwise - ie we don't use the or the plural form (etc) except in specific circumstances as detailed therein. TITLEFORMAT is saying, make sure your proposed title complies with this guidance. TITLEFORMAT is taking precedence over CRITERIA. That is the spirit and intent of the policy at WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is non-native me insisting on a mistaken reading of WP:TITLEFORMAT, but I cannot bring myself to read the first clause there remotely the same way you do. Take it to WP:MRV if you must. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should not have to invoke an adverarial process that sucks up a lot of time of a lot of editors (and the core point of which is documenting, and creating a record of, closer error), when a closer on uncertain ground can simply undo their questionable close and let someone else with a clearer understanding of policy deal with it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT (and all the rest of WP:AT) has nothing to do with style matters, which is controlled by WP:MOS and pages thereof (plus naming conventions guidelines derived from them, like WP:NCCAPS). This includes capitalization, which at Wikipedia is only used when, for a specific subject, when that capitalizations is found consistently in a substantial majority (like 90%+) of independent reliable soruces. AT is the policy that helps us choose from between entirely different (regardless of any style question) names for the same subject, like David Johansen and Buster Poindexter (and also how to disambiguate when necessary, with a preference for natural English over parenthetical or other punctuated approaches).

AT has nothing at all to do with how to capitalize or otherwise stylize the article title after it has been selected; otherwise, it would be literally impossible for the naming conventions guidelines to even exist, or for MOS to ever have any effect on RM discussions, but of course NC and MOS are key or entirely determining factors in RM decisions every single day and always have been for 20+ years. WP:AT and the WP:NC* guidelines explicitly defer to MOS on style matters dozens of times. As in virtually all capitalization RMs, there is only one question before us, period: is this term almost uniformly capitalized in independent RS? If not, then use lower case, always.

The idea that vaguely similar things must be all be capitalized on WP if any of them are capitalized is utterly false. We routinely do exactly the opposite, and follow source usage. This is why, for example, various armed conflicts have capitalized article titles, because certain particular designations like Guatemalan Civil War, Palace Rebellion, Makassar Uprising, Bay of Pigs Invasion, and Peasant Revolt (Albania), have become conventionalized as proper names and are virtually always capitalized; but a great many do not, because various descriptive appellations like Caprivi conflict, Yeosu–Suncheon rebellion, Arube uprising, Russian invasion of Manchuria, and Brunei revolt are not treated this way in the source material.

On capitalization, Wikipedia does not force an artificial "consistency" to suit editors' whims in defiance of reliable sourcing. This is not at all the sort of consistency that is meant by WP:CONSISTENT, and this is clear from actually just bothering to read WP:AT instead of making assumptions about what it might mean from strings used in sometimes unhelpful shortcuts. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the policy, thank you very much. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gj2020 (15:28, 17 October 2024)

Hello, Just Wanted to know something i recently created a new article. I created (Taj Aravali Resort & Spa) in Draft then Moved it to Mainspace by myself. and now bit confused if i took the right step or not. can you tell me know if newcomers can move the article or not? thank you --Gj2020 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or should i move it back to draft and then "submit for review" Gj2020 (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to move it, but it may still be best to ask for some outside input with your first few articles. This can be through submitting it for AfC, or you could ask on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. I had a quick look at the sources on your article, and I'm a little concerned most of them are not truly independent of the resort, but rather just republishing press releases or even straight up publishing advertizing for the resort without marking it as such. I'd try to find more sources where it looks like the reporter has done their own research on the place, rather than just repeating what the owners say. Note that commercial enterprises like this must meet the somewhat stricter notability criteria of WP:NCORP. At this point, you're under no obligation to move the article back to draftspace; you can just as well improve it where it is now. In any case, a new article reviewer will look at it soon, and may either approve it (possibly with suggested improvements), make it a draft again, or propose it be deleted. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will read WP:NCORP now. and stick to the AfC Submition.

Thank you. Gj2020 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October thanks

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuke close

		The Closer's Barnstar
		I remembered the Yasuke RFC was a mess and went to see who closed it out of morbid curiosity. Honestly, congrats for calling it the mess it was and for still being able to summarize some threads despite the absolute trainwreck of an RFC Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the heading, I was scared this would be another involved user's close challenge (see up-page). Thank you so much! <3 -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 06:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On you closing stuff, you might find [1] interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Anyways... I do like the pivot they do from neutrally describing the discussion to suddenly only quote a bunch of pro-"hamas-controlled" editors and commentators. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you noticed that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Closer's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for slaying that beast of a discussion! The wiki is better off for it. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Honestly I don't feel this closure was extraordinarily difficult, but touching policy like this is of course always a bit scary :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel it was pretty straightforward, as I mentioned at ANRFC. However, the close is the culmination of an 8 month-long process, which certainly warrants praise. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who, personally, does not like the way it turned out, I nonetheless think you made a good close, and I thank you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work as always, Maddy! Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1, really well written closing statement, of a complex discussion, it must have taken a while to read everything, thank you for putting in the time. Levivich (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin recall

Hi Maddy. Thanks for tackling that messy RfC. I'm a bit confused about one point of your close though: your conclusion that the page should immediately be marked as a policy (which I see you've already done). The RfC didn't ask if it should be a policy, it just asked if it there was consensus. We don't usually describe processes as policies or guidelines. For example, WP:RFA is not a policy. I'm worried that the policy tag will make it harder to resolve ambiguities through normal editing as you also recommended. Could you perhaps reconsider this part? – Joe (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I'm currently constrained to editing on my phone, making reading lots of PAG difficult, and will be going to sleep soon, so I'd encourage you to take this up at the recall talk page. My immediate thoughts on this are that this specific procedure went through very extensive dicussion, and the specifics of how it happens were considered very important, thus not "just procedure". As for your example, WP:RFA itself is not a policy page, but the basics of the process are defined at WP:ADMIN. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, I think the distinction lies not in policy or procedure, but policy basis versus implementation details. At one extreme, consider page moves. We have a policy basis that editors may move pages if there is a consensus and it fits with the title policy etc., and WP:RM is just a "btw this is how we organize this". On the other hand, with admin recall I think to the community, how it is done is just as important as whether it is done. "The community can desysop if there is a consensus" would be a terrible policy and would not reflect consensus. See also WP:CUOS which is a policy and describes the procedures for granting and removal of advanced permissions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that changes the fact that the question posed in the RfC did not use the word "policy". Usually when we upgrade to a policy it is via an RfC that explicitly asks "should we make this a policy"? Reading your closing statement again, it seems you mistook this discussion as a change to an existing policy (On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes [...] this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment and therefore perhaps missed the fact that we do have a set process for proposing new policies, which this did not follow. – Joe (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond briefly, but given the significant developments these last two days, I do not feel comfortable making any unilateral changes at this point, and would request you to take this up for a community discussion at an appropriate venue.

You're right about WP:PROPOSAL existing. I did read that in the process of closing, but for some reason (I probably forgot) did not comment on that in the closure.
Still, that section also does not lay down mandatory formalities for policy adoption, in the way that for example Wiktionary has them. It describes how policies are commonly adopted, but that does not mean that another process with a similar level of consensus cannot also result in policy; hence the RfC. Thus, I don't think that really changes the essential parts of my closure. Also, I see policy as a unitary body divided into pages for practical reasons, not a collection of individual, cleanly separable "policies", so policy change and policy adoption are two sides of the same coin.
The RfC question was: Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? Having administrator recall implies a new policy for that. Again, policy is not a sacred word that must specifically be voted in. It is often said that policy follows practice, so by establishing consensus for a new practice, policy is created regardless of the words used.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that the word policy has a specific definition on this project, yes? Having consensus for something does not make it a policy. As I already mentioned, the majority of processes (WP:RFA, WP:AFD, etc.) are not policies even they obviously have a vastly higher level of consensus behind them than the new admin recall procedure. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am. RFA and AFD are the pages where the things happen. What things happen is defined at WP:ADMIN and WP:DP, policies. Please refer to my previous responses on this topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and DELPOL are too old but WP:ADMIN was explicitly adopted as a policy following the process set by policy.[2][3] Unlike WP:RECALL. So again, on what basis does this meet the threshold for being considered a policy? – Joe (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring what another person is saying is great when you want to make them look stupid to an audience. Not so great when trying to convince them. You're right – I could amend my closure. I will not, however, at this time, because (a) I don't want to, and (b) I think a broader discussion is needed. Passing the buck to AN is exactly what is to be done in this situation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Joe Roe removed the policy tag from the page, and I have readded it. If I have missed a discussion elsewhere about it (e.g. a close challenge at AN or Maddy amending the close somewhere), please point me to it. Otherwise I think the process is to talk it out here, and if that's unsatisfactory, to get community review at WP:AN. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy? – Joe (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Janicke Askevold for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janicke Askevold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janicke Askevold until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2024

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323

Online events:

New: Asian women | Geofocus: Islands Q-Z | Women in engineering

Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative)

Announcements from other communities

Annual Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) is an online campaign designed to boost
Asian content on Wikipedia each November.
Unreferenced articles backlog drive. These Wikiproject clean-up lists offer a start
to November's backlog drive, e.g. Women's History and Women writers

Tip of the month:

Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed images at
search.creativecommons.org/

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project.
Follow us on social media:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Question from Ven3u69 (23:45, 29 October 2024)

Do you know if all details must be filled in within regards to book citing? Like, If I have all of the useful information, such as IBN, etc, do I need to do the other "less" important things? If I don't have it. --Ven3u69 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You do not need to fill in absolutely every piece of information. You do need enough to uniquely identify the work. I'd suggest:

Title
Authors or editors
Year
Publisher
Edition, if not first
ISBN or some other kind of numerical identifier if available
Page numbers for each reference

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes