This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rhododendrites, for the period January 2024 - March 2024. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email), Epicgenius (talk·contribs·email), and Frostly (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) is a small cowbird in the icterid family, Icteridae. It is distinguished from other icterids by its finch-like head and beak and its smaller size. The adult male is iridescent black in color with a brown head, while the adult female is slightly smaller and is dull grey with a pale throat and very fine streaking on the underparts. The brown-headed cowbird is an obligate brood parasite, laying its eggs in the nests of other small perching birds and relying on those birds to raise its young. Its eggs have been documented in the nests of at least 220 host species, including hummingbirds and raptors. This female brown-head cowbird was photographed in Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City.
Poland report: Intense end to a year of GLAM-Wiki activities in Poland
Sweden report: Photo memories project concludes; Sörmlands museum passes 1000 uploads to Wikimedia Commons; Wikimedian in Residence supports an upload of music content; Subject terms from Queerlit; Wikidata for authority control: 3 years of work
USA report: WikiConference North America 2023; TSU and USF; Philadelphia WikiSalon; Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting; Wikipedia Editing 101 for All; NYC Hacking Night; Upstate NY workshop; Wikiquote She Said Project
The article Flaco (owl) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flaco (owl) for comments about the article, and Talk:Flaco (owl)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 60
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
WikiWednesday is back this month! You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.
Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs), Epicgenius (talk·contribs), and Frostly (talk·contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
On 18 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flaco (owl), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that having lived in Central Park for more than a year after becoming homeless, Flaco(pictured) has been accused of being a peeping tom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flaco (owl). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Flaco (owl)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Several issues with this article including that while significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Story on Flaco the owl is nothing more than a local, non-notabile news story with excessively detail. What the Flaco article demonstrates (and many other articles on New York City as well as other major metropolitan areas is Urban bias. The Pew Research Center report "One-in-five U.S. newsroom employees live in New York, Los Angeles or D.C." showcases 12 percent of all U.S. newsroom employees—reporters, editors, photographers, live in New York City while only 7 percent of the U.S. working-age population lives in New York City. The subject should be moved to a subheading in the Central Park Zoo article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
@Myotus: It may be notable because of urban bias, but it's notable. If you're looking at that massive list of sources (not to mention the many published just in the last few weeks that aren't in the article yet) and conclude that it's not notable, I would urge you to recalibrate your understanding of WP:N. What is notable may be notable because of many various biases in the world, but they're notable nonetheless. If you see that it has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and still want to nominate it for deletion to make a point, that falls under WP:POINT. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
So give that you acknowledge its notability due to urban bias, just exactly what is your reason for creating it and with all its the trival details? Why are you not okay with moving the subject to the Central Park Zoo? It seems to me by doing so you are ignoring a problem as well as being part of the problem. Myotus (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Myotus: Let's back up for a sec. The way I see it, there are three types/levels of systemic bias to think about. At the first level (which is only the "first" level insofar as it's a useful starting point) is the rules we create and apply to determine who/what should be included in Wikipedia. Let's put aside the distinction between "has its own article" and "is part of another article" for the time being. The basic concept boils down to "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". What that means and how it's applied varies a bit based on certain considerations but that's the gist. Another way to frame that is "the way we combine WP:V, WP:NPOV, the self-identification as an 'encyclopedia', and the possibility of everyone being allowed to edit". It's pretty fundamental to Wikipedia, but certainly a valid discussion to have, if for no other reason than to draw attention to the vast stretch of reality that exists outside of what we've decided to call "encyclopedic" and how that varies in the gray areas.
Moving on, though, the second level of systemic bias is everything external to Wikipedia: how we lack written "coverage" for most of written history; how everything before the printing press, before the computer, before the internet is less and less accessible; how we exclude oral history; how parts of the world with the resources to build vast publishing infrastructure will have more "coverage" about them than everywhere else such that leaders, artists, and writers in one country can have articles while leaders, artists, and writers of the same relative renown in another country cannot; or how publishing is primarily a for-profit enterprise that seeks to maximize eyeballs and appeals to the lowest common denominator, making things like sports and entertainment more visible than pottery and scientists.
The third level of systemic bias has to do with what selection of "notable" subjects we actually cover -- those that manage to get that external coverage and manage to get by our rules. This has a lot to do with who writes [English] Wikipedia. If we don't have volunteers who can read Finnish, our coverage of Finnish subjects will be poor; if most of our users are men, we wind up with excellent coverage of football and military topics but poor coverage of dance, poetry, and other "topics typically relevant to the lives women" (here I'm referring to some research which has framed the gender gap in these terms -- I'm not just arbitrarily sorting into "boy stuff" and "girl stuff"). Our gender gap is well studied and well documented at this point (with lots of great projects like Women in Red and Art+Feminism working to address it), but there are countless other content gaps that exist that we could cover but don't. This is IMO the primary way we should be "fixing the problem".
Coming back to the point: I read your criticism of the existence of the Flaco article as sitting primarily in level #2. #2 is not something we can help here on Wikipedia. Several people have floated or speculated about projects to publish material based on Wikipedia content gaps, but I haven't seen any materialize and they would all be external to Wikipedia anyway. The Wikimedia Foundation tried to fund organizations producing material on underrepresented people/subjects recently (the Knowledge Equity Fund) and met with a surprising amount of community pushback for being too out of scope. Our volunteers can and should try to write material that fills content gaps outside of Wikipedia for the sake of Wikipedia if they want to, but it's not something we can address internally. Our goal is to summarize what is out there. The national and international press has decided that this New York City subject is worth writing about. They have done so and made it notable. Not locally notable -- notable notable. If you want to find some little local restaurant sourced just to NYT, Eater, and Gothamist, there's a conversation to be had about audience, but Flaco just isn't a good example to make that point.
As for your accusation that I'm "part of the problem", I'm not going to apologize for writing about a subject that's both clearly notable and of personal interest to me. I don't seek out articles because they're popular. Most of the time when I take on a project it's because I go to Wikipedia to learn about something and don't find what I'm looking for (or find it in a poor state). Sometimes I seek out a subject based on a representation gap (in the pre-pandemic days when we ran lots of events with partners, our activities at WikiNYC were overwhelmingly oriented towards addressing content gaps and participation biases), but sometimes it's just what I think is interesting in the moment. In this case, it was an owl. One that attracted hordes of people, received a constant stream of widespread press attention, and apparently inspired a bunch of art and a forthcoming documentary. All pretty unusual for a zoo owl, no? But it's not important because it happened in NYC? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.
The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:
Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.
Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of saxophonists, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
The event will feature lightning talks and a Wiki-fashion show, for which you are encouraged to dress in your finest Wikimedia clothing and accessories (bags, buttons, even books), or clothing connected to the topics you edit on wiki projects.
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
The eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) is a chipmunk species found in eastern North America. It is a small species, reaching about 30 centimetres (12 in) in length, with a weight of 66 to 150 grams (2.3 to 5.3 oz). It has reddish-brown fur on its upper body and five dark brown stripes contrasting with light brown stripes along its back, ending in a dark tail. The eastern chipmunk can climb trees well, but constructs underground nests with extensive tunnel systems, often with several entrances. Its vocal repertoire consists of five sounds: the chip, the chuck, the trills, the whistle or squeal, and chatter. Trills have been measured to occur at the rate of 130 vibrations per minute. The eastern chipmunk lives a solitary life, except during courtship and mating and for the short period that young spend with their mothers after birth. It sometimes hibernates during the winter. This eastern chipmunk with stuffed cheeks was photographed in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, New York.
February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award
Citation Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Rhododendrites for collecting more than 50 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
WikiNYC: 3/14 Hacking Night + 3/16 Queens Name Explorer
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
New Zealand report: WikiProject Te Papa Research Expeditions, wrapping up the Auckland / Tāmaki Makaurau local histories project, and the Aotearoa Wikipedian at Large
Poland report: WikiMatejko editing action; The eighth European GLAM Wiki coordinators meet up
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:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, 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 SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, 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 Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, 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 City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, 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 Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, 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 BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, 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.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia: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:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
