User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 56

Archive 50Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 60

Commons templates in EL are "misplaced"?

Hey, I reverted you on one article but then I noticed you seem to be doing this same edit on hundreds of articles, so I thought I'd come ask. (They're all deletions of commons links). I'm just a regular editor creating articles, and I don't understand your edit comment that a commons link in an EL section is "misplaced"?

I've looked at the help for the commons templates themselves, and the help pages on what's allowed in an EL section, and EVERYTHING says using commons links like that is just fine. Has there been some policy change that I'm not finding? Wouldn't it be a good idea to update the MOS and help documents before we go ripping these out everywhere? (Just a thought).

Also, a bunch of the edits you are doing are leaving articles with empty "external links" sections, which IMHO looks poor. I'm guessing some robot will come along and clean those up, but...

Sign me confused in Atlanta, as I don't understand these deletions. --Krelnik (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I also am starting to wonder if this is a good idea. Hundreds of mine are affected. Could you explain Mike? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Krelnik and Philafrenzy: They are 'misplaced' as the commons category doesn't match the article. In Dr. Mary B. Moody House, commons:Category:Mary Blair Moody was linked, but that link belongs at Mary Blair Moody as the category is about the person - the correct link for the house needed to be created, which I did, and now the article links to commons:Category:Dr. Mary B. Moody House. I generally don't think that the links are 'external', but that's a separate point - I'm fairly sure they shouldn't be the only link in 'external links' though!
In this run I'm only removing links that are clearly misplaced, I'm skipping over cases where it's less clear to look at them more closely in the future. I'm also generally correcting as many links as I can (look for edits with summaries starting 'Changing the Commons category'). It's part of the cross-wiki cleanup work of Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories - all links should ideally be in the '... from Wikidata' or '... on Wikidata' categories, the others have something wrong here, on Wikidata, or on Commons.
I'm happy to double-check/discuss specific cases where you think the removal was incorrect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think the links from Wikipedia to Commons don't need to be bijective. If the result of these edits is to reduce the number of English Wikipedia articles with a link to Commons, we're making things worse and not better. Nemo 10:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: It's only affecting a small percentage of the links, most of them are fine. Think of it as pruning back dead growth to make way for new. I'm thinking of proposing a bot that would add more uses of {{Commons category}} in the future, but I want the backlog of bad links to be sorted out first, to see if we can then sustain maintenance of the links. I've also been adding a huge number of new links to Commons in the sidebar, but that's not so easy to see here - it's clearer on Commons where the new links mean that more infoboxes can be added to categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Many of the council level articles do not have corresponding categories on the commons, so instead, we point them to the state level category. --evrik (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there actually media on Commons about those councils, though? If there is, can you create commons categories for them? If not, are the links actually useful? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
A little but not enough to justify a category for him which is why I didn't create it at the time. But did you consider these points before removing the link? I don't think you did. It's not good enough to make a large number of changes like this on the basis that you will look again if someone complains as you said above. Not every article is watched closely.
The relevant guidance appears to be here which merely states that such links need to be "likely to be useful to our readers". They don't have to exactly match the article's stated subject. So stamps of BG is useful in McKinnon and Scouting in Tennessee is useful in an article closely related to that subject. I think you should stop these mass changes as they don't appear to have a sound rationale. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the links I've been removing are "likely to be useful to our reader", which is why I removed them. That includes the cases we're discussing here, for the reasons I've already given. I haven't been blanket-removing all commons category links that don't 100% match the article topic that I come across - only those where it is clear that they are misplaced. I have other things that I can get on with, so I'll leave this for now and see if there is any more feedback. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Another example ... Seating plan has its own category on the commons. commons:Category:Election apportionment diagrams was in the external links. This was done not as a reference, but to promote further exploartion of the topic. --evrik (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: That's ... deliberately misleading? Injecting politics into a non-political topic? I see you silently reverted me as part of another edit, and I don't want to edit war, but I can't see how that is at all useful? Mike Peel (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Silent reversion? No. Besides, I referred to the article here, so I am sure you saw it. I don't want to get lost in the weeds here. I think the bigger point i that oftens, commonscat links are part of the external links, and may not always be the same as the article name. --evrik (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    I mean you didn't use the 'undo' link, so I didn't get a notice that the edit had been undone. Agreed that the links may not always be the same as the article name, but they should always be related to the topic - otherwise they are misplaced. (And also, they aren't external links, they're sister project links). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Synchronising short descriptions and Wikidata descriptions

Hi Mike. I apologise for refactoring your Rfc at WP:VPP #Synchronising short descriptions and Wikidata descriptions, but the first section up to your first signature needs to be transcluded by Legobot, and what you wrote was miles too big. See WP:RFCBRIEF for the gory details. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: It took me a while, but I traced this back to [1]. Thanks for making that change! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  Facepalm – Sorry, Mike, I really should have linked the diff. Mea culpa! --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Jerry Masslo

Thanks for your work on Template:Did you know nominations/Jerry Masslo, I now made a review. Mujinga (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Peel, there are a few things still needed before the nomination can be approved, and it appears you're the only person who has offered to handle issues who is available to do so. We hope you'll be able to stop by the nomination and take care of what's remaining in the article. Thank you so much for your offer to assist! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #428

This Month in GLAM: July 2020

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

DYK for Dona Joaninha

On 14 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dona Joaninha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dona Joaninha (pictured), which had hauled sugar cane across Brazil since 1940, was sold to a scrap dealer and then became a monument? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dona Joaninha), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #429

Wikidata weekly summary #430

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

Wikidata weekly summary #431

DYK for Casa Fuerte de Adeje

On 1 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Casa Fuerte de Adeje, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Casa Fuerte de Adeje was built in Tenerife in the 1550s to protect a sugar mill against pirates, but the complex was destroyed by fire in 1902 and has yet to be rebuilt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Casa Fuerte de Adeje. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Casa Fuerte de Adeje), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Eddie891
  AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

  CheckUser changes

  SQL

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
  • A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
  • A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

  Arbitration


Wikidata weekly summary #432

This Month in GLAM: August 2020

 




Headlines
  • Albania report: Wikivoyage edit-a-thon - Editing Albania and Kosovo’s travel destinations
  • Brazil report: Open innovation and dissemination activities: wrapping up great achievements on a major GLAM in Brazil
  • Czech Republic report: First Prague Wiki Editathon held in Prague
  • Estonia report: Virtual exhibition about Polish-Estonian relations. Rephotography and cultural heritage
  • Germany report: KulTour in Swabia and 8000 documents new online
  • India report: Utilising Occasion for Content donation: A story
  • Netherlands report: WMIN & WMNL collaboration & Japanese propaganda films
  • Serbia report: Enriching Wiki projects in different ways
  • Sweden report: Free music and new recordings of songs in the public domain; Autumn in the libraries; Yes, you can hack the heritage this year – online!
  • Uganda report: Participating in the African Librarians Week (24-30 May 2020)
  • UK report: Spanish metal and ...
  • USA report: Wiknic & Black Artists Matter & Respect Her Crank
  • WMF GLAM report: Wikipedia Library, new WikiCite grant programs, and GLAM office hours
  • Calendar: September's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.