Jump to content

User talk:PamD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page. If you want me to reply elsewhere, tell me why.
03:26 Saturday 26 October 2024 - - - - WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

Please click "New section" or "Add" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).

If you leave a message here, I will reply here, to make discussions easier to read. If you really want me to reply elsewhere, tell me a very good reason why I should do so.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.

Thanks. PamD

Welcome to the drive!

[edit]

Welcome, welcome, welcome PamD! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources
CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:39, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Short Decent Stubs

[edit]

Hello @PamDhow are you? I remembered you helped me with my first published page :-) Thank you.

You also said you made short decent stubs of topics and I wondered if there was a video tutorial on how to do this? I get come across lots of useful topics during my writing work but I don't have the time to do full pages.

It is really frustrating! The Nookster (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo again @The Nookster. I can't think of any particular tutorial (there may be good stuff out there but I'm not familiar with it all), but a few key points, apart from the stuff I said before, would be:
  • Check thoroughly that there isn't already an article on the topic. Check variant names you find in any sources. Even if you're going to start the article in draft, act as if you're going to start it in mainspace and look to see whether any message pops up about it being deleted in the past - sometimes it'll be because AfD decided it wasn't notable, but other times because the person who started it was then blocked as a sockpuppet, or because it was entirely Copyright theft, leaving it free to be re-created. It can be useful to follow the "What links here" link too, to see if it's been discussed anywhere, or linked from other articles.
  • If there is already an article at the title you want to use, work out how to disambiguate the new one, by adding "(writer)" or whatever.
  • Be sure that the topic satisfies WP:Notability. Some categories of topics are more-or-less automatically notable, like members of a national parliament etc (SEE WP:NPOL) or legally-recognised populated places; there are special rules for academics at WP:NPROF; and so on.
  • Be sure you have at least 2, preferably 3, Reliable independent published sources. These don't have to be online, eg if you have a book in front of you or a newspaper clipping which shows the newspaper, date and page as well as the article title, but online sources are popular as they can be more easily verified.
  • If you meet the criteria, use The Wikipedia Library for access to all sorts of wonderful online sources.
  • Even just for a stub, remember to make clear in the first sentence why we should be interested in the topic: "X (dates) is a Y-ish Z" and their main claim to notability.
  • Actually, something you might find helpful is the template I use, at User:PamD/sandbox#Bio stub starter - I use it to remind myself of the basic infrastructure. "In use" stays for the duration of the editing session, and "Under construction" for up to a week if still working on it. Just copy and paste that outline, and it'll be a start.
  • And write. Use surname only, after the lead; source everything; tell us why she/he or it is notable. Remember it's an international encyclopedia, so main placenames need initially to specify "England", and terms like "BBC" aren't necessarily obvious to the reader.
  • If the article would benefit from an infobox, find a good article on the same sort of topic and see which of the umpteen "Infobox" templates has been used there, then follow.
  • Edit carefully, check that all the links go where you expect them to (and not to a disambiguation page, or a footballer where you're expecting a physicist, or whatever), read through for typos, check that punctuation is in front of references, that you haven't used "curly" quotes/apostrophes, etc
  • And create a basic talk page with a couple of relevant WikiProject banners, including the appropriate Women in Red one (if nothing specific, then WIR|293 for "#1day1woman".
  • Make incoming redirects from all plausible versions of the name (married / middle / versions found in sources), to help readers and to help prevent someone else from creating a duplicate. If at this point you find a duplicate, and it's definitely the same person, then stop. Add your new content, if any, to that article. If you're convinced it's at the wrong title, then suggest a move using the Request Move process. Don't copy and paste anyone else's work to a new title. The first-created article takes precedence, even if it's poorly-written and at the wrong title.
  • If your title has a disambiguation, like "(writer)", then be sure that it is listed at the basic title, whether this is by adding or expanding a hatnote, adding an entry on a talk page, or if need be creating a new disambiguation page. By whatever means, you need to make sure that the reader looking for the topic will be able to find it!
Well, I hope some of that lot helps - rather random jottings while listening to the Sunday omnibus of The Archers! Happy Editing! PamD 11:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your user page : I see you're a professional "content creator", so you need to be familiar with Wikipedia's rules about WP:COI and WP:PAID, if you're considering editing for pay.
I see also that you've marked a lot of contributions as "minor", although sometimes they include adding new text as here. Some editors get very upset about that: minor is supposed to be only very, very, minor: slight formatting changes, very obvious typo fix, etc. See Help:Minor for more info. I don't bother marking anything as "minor", myself. PamD 11:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @PamD yes I know about the paid for content ethics and agree whole-heartedly with them. I've been a sporadic Wikipedian! I love the project so much :-) It makes me really happy being an editor on here too. A real delight to see some little fact appear and help in my own small way to the knowledge bank. I hope to be able to do more when I'm old and stuck in front of the fire! Hope The Archers was good! I'm more of a desert island discs person at the moment. Thanks for the note on minor contributions. Will never mark anything as a minor edit from now... The Nookster (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PamD thanks for all this. Hopefully I will be able to contribute a bit more in smaller chunks :-) The Nookster (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS Just having a good look at this and the bio stub starter is really useful, thanks @PamD The Nookster (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improving user page

[edit]

Thank you for showing me how to add revision links to my user page! That was fun. Do I need to secure my user page from vandalism? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthemilescombined1: No, unless you find it becomes a target for vandalism in which case you could ask for protection. Personally I don't see why unregistered or unconfirmed users are allowed to edit anyone's user page, but it rarely happens. PamD 20:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

"The center for teaching and learning" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect The center for teaching and learning has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 30 § The center for teaching and learning until a consensus is reached. Skynxnex (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zonca

[edit]

Hello PamD. Would you be happy to give me some assistance here please: Talk:Zonca Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and see here User talk:Shhhnotsoloud#Zonca for context. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried! There seems to be a history of getting things not quite right around Zonca. PamD 11:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Wikipedians

[edit]
WikiProject Elder Wikipedians

My proposal to make extensive changes to WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older was a bust, primarily because many users felt that the term "Senior Wikipedian" implied a higher ranking Wikipedia membership. Therefore, I am making two less ambitious proposals:

Proposal #1. Change the name of "WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older" to "WikiProject Elder Wikipedians".
Proposal #2. Drop the minimum age requirement to 60 years.

Please respond to Elder Wikipedians and let us know what you think of each of these proposals.
Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail

If you don't wish to receive any further information about Elder Wikipedians, please remove your username from our notice list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help

[edit]

I'm a beginner on Wikipedia and my article was nominated for deletion. Could you please help me? I put some effort into it. I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines. Here's the discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamila_Musayeva Mlody1312 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover

[edit]

I don't think you understand this particular edit. I realized almost all of the "multiple references" used were, in fact, the same article posted without credit throughout the internet (so, functionally, the same reference). I found an article that at least appears to give credit, and used that in a way that made it transparent that it was the same article/reference. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses But if you reduce it all to one local paper, "Former nude Playboy model and Loughton resident ...", it gives a very different impression. And not all the detail is present in each version: the first ref (though its date looks dubious, I admit) is the one which gives detail of the two previous incidents. Given that someone wants to delete the article altogether, making this section appear as if "only the local paper covered it, no wider interest" seems a step to the section being deleted completely. The very fact of coverage in several sources (Mirror, Sky, and two separate articles in the Brighton paper), seems significant. PamD 13:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD The AfD is over now. The article isn't getting deleted. if the section were deleted, it might actually be more compliant with the BLP policy, anyways. The first article having dubious is actually a reason to not use it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD In regard to that section though, is the subject of the article really still a high-profile individual? I agree that notability has been established. But, if the subject is low-profile, then only information directly relevant to their notability should be included per the BLP guidelines. The criminal convictions aren't relevant to their original reason for notability. They may have been a high-profile individual at the time, but that can change. "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." and "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". Svenska356 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svenska356 I guess I take a more moderate approach, in that a few, well-sourced sentences about a criminal conviction at the end of an article isn't going to tarnish Glovers' reputation enough to justify a potentially prolonged argument. We could, potentially, even go down to one sentence: "Glover was convicted of assaulting a DJ. [inline citation]" After all, the assault and resulting criminal issues did happen, and it's not defamation to point that out.
The problem is the apparent determination that any shortening of the article could very well result in the deletion of it. On a website where stubbification is not a form of deletion but rather an alternative to deletion*, that doesn't make sense.
(*As an aside, I'm surprised stubbification isn't listed on WP:ATD. I've used it as an alternative to deletion several times; basically, a milder form of WP:TNT). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses @Svenska356:, this discussion should be visible to all on the article's talk page not scattered around many User talk pages. But I'm surprised that editors trying to minimise the negative aspects of her story haven't done much to include the positive ( a chunk of which was recently removed). I had a go this morning. PamD 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Maybe we should continue on Talk:Louise Glover and link to the other discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD I agree that it should be added to the talk page. Sorry, that was my bad in terms of my attempted addition. I am not too experienced when it comes to doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenska356 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context to above post: this entire section had been copied and pasted to Talk:Louise Glover with no explanation to show that it was not native to that page: I reverted. PamD 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion

[edit]

Nomination of A Comedy of Terrors for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Comedy of Terrors 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/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Comedy of Terrors 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.
Mlody1312 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Action page

[edit]

Hi Pam.

Any help you could give with the Centenary Action page would be really appreciated. Someone in California seems to have taken exception to it, but it is a genuine campaigning organisation to increase female representation in parliament. I have tried to update the references according to guidelines, and it would be great if those notices could be removed.

If you are not able to help but could point me towards someone who could, that would be great.

@Kps215 Kps2015 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 In the interest of full transparency, I'm watching this talk page and am the "person from California" you're talking about. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 I'm not clear, looking at the article, whether "Centenary Action" and "Centenary Action Group" are the same thing. Is it an organisation of individuals, or an joining-together of many organisations?
The sections on "Campaign successes" and "Media coverage" are, to be honest, a mess. Take the first one: you've linked a chunk of text as an external link, that isn't how it's done. You've duplicated the same link as a reference. That ref supports the fact that IPSA makes provision for parental leave, certainly. But it doesn't mention Centenary Action. There is nothing to support the fact that CA had anything to do with this. You need to find references in reliable independent published sources (ie not CA's own website or publications) which explicitly state that it was campaigning by CA which led, at least in part, to the change. And the same for all your other points in those two sections.
Yes, I'm sure CA is a good and worthy group fighting a necessary battle, but this article hasn't yet got much evidence of the coverage in WP:RS which is needed for it to be a worthy encyclopedia article. That's why I suggested "Draftifying" it: putting it into the "Draft" space so that you and other editors could polish it up, add sources etc, without it being vulnerable to deletion as being inadequately sourced to show notability. Whether by editors from across the pond or not.
Here's one article, for a start:
Crockett, Moya (2017). "Toxic culture is "actively putting women off" entering politics, say campaigners". Stylist. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
PamD 15:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 There's also the issue of WP:COI. Somewhere along the way you said that some text you had added to the article which was removed as copyright was OK because it had been added by the person who'd written it on their site (or words to that effect: I'm not going to chase up to find just where). That suggests that you are a volunteer or employee of CA, if you are writing their website. Please clarify your relationship to the organisation, after reading WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thanks. PamD 16:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pam,
I think Kps2015 said the thing about the copyright at the AfD. And thanks, I've been trying to point to notability policies (which, more or less, boil down to reliable sourcing). I'm okay with draftification, but WP:DRAFTIFY technically disallows unilaterally moving an article to draftspace more than once (maaaybe even if the person doing is has a COI? It's hard to tell). My intuition tells me this would be unilaterally moved back if I did that, anyways, so it's not worth my time. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PamD&oldid=1253374559"