I saw your revert here [[1]]. I'm curious to know if it is widely agreed is there additional sources that can be added? I think it would behoove us to at least have a source that helps outside the organization. On a personal note I was also raised as a Jehovah's Witness and while I don't think they would lie about it, I think in the spirit of verifying our writing that we should note it is based on internal reporting if we don't have reliable outside sources. I think the wording could have been better but it might be accurate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to see the beginning of the sentence stating the group reports. That makes much more sense and while outside sourcing would help I think that is nuetral presenting the source and where it came from. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hell in a Bucket: Here ya go. Put it in where you see fit and reword the section a bit if you'd like. I'll take a look when you're done but I'm sure it'll be fine.
"Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly defined, and transparently calculated." Dr. Zoe Knox, Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011 pg 166
Thank you for that. I went to go and try and word it with the source. The more I looked I also checked the demographics situation and it is sourced very heavily so I think my point was more moot then I realized. I think more to the lead may make it more complicated when we can cover it in more detail and have the sources in a separate section. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing too many things at once or I might have reviewed it a bit more. However, technically I don't see a conflict. Crouch's doubt is about WHICH of the figures was originally meant to be William, and not whether he was buried there. The temple was badly damaged, and then someone tried to guess which one it was. Older descriptions show that it was once easier to identify him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Vyselink, it wasn't me who changed an other's edit on the Revolutionary War's Talk page, it was user:Harper1234567 with this edit. My edit, which immediately followed can be viewed here which only involved one spelling correction. Somehow I got the alert that my edit was reverted, but again, the only edit on my part following Harper1234567's edit was a spelling correction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: I am aware that the unregistered user did the most egregious editing, and thus why I reverted it back to your last edit. However, you DID edit Lord Cornwallis's use of "summarise" to "summarize", which is still inappropriate (see WP:TPO) because A) the talk page need not be a bastion of perfect spelling or grammar, and B) in this case it was not in fact a misspelling but simply a difference in American English v British English. In Great Britain (and those who use British English) "summarises" is how the word is spelled and Lord Cornwallis identifies on his page as a British Citizen.
It is an incredibly minor thing and one that isn't a big broo-ha-ha (so to speak) but unless it is to remove something inappropriate via the guidelines given above, editing another person's talk page post should never be done. It simply sets bad precedent. Vyselink (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Also, the reason you got the alert is the way I changed it (by reverting to a previous version of the page) erased your edit as well. Anyone who had made any edits would have received the message, it just happened to be only you and the other editor this time. Vyselink (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 20–20–20 club, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Vyselink. I didn't really think that you were canvassing when you mentioned the Marshall and the Young King on my talk page ~ i just wanted to be open about it to forestall any such comments. I appreciate the notification, and your opening the discussion. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello17:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who
Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird...
Hello!
Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly.
For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list.
I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo.....
Big Spike in Productivity
During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees.
Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA.
2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status.
The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check.
Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed.
Proposals to the WikiProject
A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows:
The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces.
The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site.
Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section.
An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR.
Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise.
The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates.
If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion.
Discussions of Note
A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments.
If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who
You like Doctor Who? What's his name then?
Welcome
Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff.
Articles for deletion Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as Time War (Doctor Who), and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up.
Notice of Draft Articles A new Doctor Who spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called The War Between the Land and the Sea, and will feature old and new Whoniverse characters working for UNIT as they battle the Sea Devils. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is currently underway in a draft article. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at WP:NTV.
Doctor Who News A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of Doctor Who News. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the Appreciation Index of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith.
A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject talk page.
Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A sub-page has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards.
Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject
Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows:
1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD.
2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit.
3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue.
If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on the article's talk page.
If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
