Loading AI tools
|
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition has begun and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. 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. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antiqueight,
Thanks for your offer of assistance and helpful suggestions. I will introduce myself to the women in red, not that I'll be of much use for the moment. Cheers, Maryanne Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Maryanne Cunningham, You're Welcome. And for WiR it's less about you being much use but about there being a place where you can find things to work on and people to help you do it....Usually good folks with a pleasant response to newbies - much like the Teahouse. And of course, I'm all in favour of recruiting potentials...when you do feel up to it.. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Isn't wikidata just based on whatever Wikipedia and other wikis say, but much less critically followed up?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew Lancaster I don't understand the question. I am not an expert on Wikidata. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I noticed that MOST of your recent edits import short descriptions of articles from Wikidata?? I am wondering if this is really a good idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- When they match the content of the lead, what is the issue? When I disagree with the data I enter new information. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 20:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well I noticed one on a page I watch which I found a bit questionable (Basina of Thuringia, who some authors think might come from Tongeren, could most simply be described as the wife of Childeric), and therefore my question about whether this is a good idea. My impression is that these short titles are done quickly by editors not necessarily looking carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that may also be a matter of interpretation. I don't re examine the evidence of the whole article, I look at what it says about the person in the lead. That is what it says. If the article is wrong then fix it and fix the short description while you're at it. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is ok for the ones I see but you are presumably doing hundreds of these edits? Many of these edits will probably go unseen, copying from another wiki.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- So basically you have no actual complaint about the edits you have seen and are making assumptions about those you have not? ☕ Antiqueight chatter 13:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is ok for the ones I see but you are presumably doing hundreds of these edits? Many of these edits will probably go unseen, copying from another wiki.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that may also be a matter of interpretation. I don't re examine the evidence of the whole article, I look at what it says about the person in the lead. That is what it says. If the article is wrong then fix it and fix the short description while you're at it. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well I noticed one on a page I watch which I found a bit questionable (Basina of Thuringia, who some authors think might come from Tongeren, could most simply be described as the wife of Childeric), and therefore my question about whether this is a good idea. My impression is that these short titles are done quickly by editors not necessarily looking carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- When they match the content of the lead, what is the issue? When I disagree with the data I enter new information. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 20:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I noticed that MOST of your recent edits import short descriptions of articles from Wikidata?? I am wondering if this is really a good idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antiqueeight! Congratulations on your entries: I have been following in your footsteps a fair bit recently. Keep making Blue! Protozoon (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Protozoon. I have appreciated seeing the changes you have made to several articles where I knew I didn't have the specific knowledge to go further with some details. It's great to see someone come through and improve on them. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 20:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
As you may have seen, we are going ahead with Women in horror. Thanks for your efforts on the red links. Hope it goes off well.--Ipigott (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ipigott - Excellent- I shall go nuts publicising it (here's hoping I'm not the only one writing articles....) ☕ Antiqueight chatter 16:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Megalibrarygirl I got no invitation for March? ☕ Antiqueight chatter 20:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 |
The Special Barnstar |
| Thank you for all you do on Ireland topics and the Challenge!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC) |
Dr. Blofeld - 
Thank you. I love Barnstars ☕ Antiqueight chatter 11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
From your user page and the new WIR user box, I see you have created 416 articles about women since 2013. Well done! Quite an achievement. You must be one of our most productive members.--Ipigott (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ipigott - I'm trying anyway - I have my tracker and it tells me I have 418/468 articles are women's bios (I've done 2 since I put the new user box up). 345 of the women are Irish. About 193 are listed as writers. I have a long way to go to catch up with you lot but I did 146 in 2016, 126 in 2018, 137 in 2019 and 51 so far this year. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 13:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I see from here that there have been lots of months when you have hardly been active at all. If you can keep to 50 a month, then you could produce 600 by the end of the year. You are certainly helping to put Ireland on Wikipedia's literature map with all the new names you have added to the List of Irish women writers. I can see there is plenty of scope for more. And now we're no doubt going to get a huge batch on horror stories and their authors from you. Great stuff!--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Consistency is the thing. I don't expect to hit 50 per month - that was to give me breathing room when a few days go by and I can't get to write anything. And keeping it going for a whole year is the challenge. But yes- I have absolute plans for horror even if it isn't really my gig. And then Art+. But the big challenge is to keep going. I don't think I will be able to pull off 600.... But I'll be giving it a go! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 15:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I see from here that there have been lots of months when you have hardly been active at all. If you can keep to 50 a month, then you could produce 600 by the end of the year. You are certainly helping to put Ireland on Wikipedia's literature map with all the new names you have added to the List of Irish women writers. I can see there is plenty of scope for more. And now we're no doubt going to get a huge batch on horror stories and their authors from you. Great stuff!--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, question about the citations/references. I've been doing small edits, and did a few off the Citation Hunt (was actually fun learning some new things on there). There's a mix of citation formats and I didn't see (else missed) guidance..? Hoping to add quality edits and not mess things up.
New to this and sorry if this is very elementary.
Thank you (posted to you since you've stopped by before)!
nabejero (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)nabejero
- Nabejero -Greetings! I use a tool which helps me to create the citations. There is no standard as such other than to use the same style as the rest of the document (often easiest done by copying an existing one and replacing the details you need to replace. There is a citation tool that can be loaded into the edit box but I tend to use this which lets me chose one of the two most common citation styles used. Wikipedia:Citation templates gives the total details (but confuses me quite a bit) while I think Wikipedia:RefToolbar is the one that pops up on my edit screen - I don't use the visual editing system as I find I have more control using the markup text. Does that make sense? ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Antiqueight Thank you, this is helpful! Also, if I have a question about an edit I want to make, do I post to my page and tag people (I only know you and another contributor called Acetic Acid), or post to your talk page, e.g., here?Thanks again!nabejero (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)nabejero
- Antiqueight Never mind, I found the answer on this page.
- Nabejero You are always welcome to come here and ask but yes - there are many other places to contact editors with experience who will help out. The teahouse and the Village pump are two very popular locations. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 |
The Content Creativity Barnstar | |
| I had thought of waiting for #500, with a Writer's Star, but maybe a small star for the last 1% is also good. So much expansion of coverage, especially on women and Ireland - it makes a real difference! SeoR (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
- SeoR THANK YOU -I love a barn star. #495 is done. I should make it to 500 by the end of the month. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, 
Enwebb, 
Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
.svg){kind=small}
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
- New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
- Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
- If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 
L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Just read your article Cecily Maude O'Connell, really excellent work, and brilliant research. I noticed the article as it filled in one of my red links. Thank you! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, also Mary Hynes Swanton! Thanks!! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Chris.sherlock
Thank you I appreciate that. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have done heaps! Just read your list of articles, I’m in awe! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Chris.sherlock
Thanks for the thank yous but there is really no need to do so each time I happen to assess an article you edited or created. Thank you for your appreciation. ww2censor (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do try to remember not to thank you everytime but I get so happy to see it assessed. :-) ☕ Antiqueight chatter 11:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mari Ness 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/Mari Ness 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. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
.jpg) |
Mary Wollstonecraft Award | |
| On behalf of WP:WPWW, thank you for the recent new article on Caryl Lewis, winner of the Wales Book of the Year award in 2005 with her novel Martha Jac a Sianco. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC) |
- Oh, oh my. Thank you Rosiestep and to all the WikiProject Women writers! I am speechless. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 22:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Antiqueight, Can I ask you to take a look at this: , please? I noted that you updated many articles on Irish culture and especially literature. My article about a small Irish poetry press, SurVision Books and Magazine, is currently in danger. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and maybe vote. Cheers.--Bonmot (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
- Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews- Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
- Lee Vilenski with 869 points,
Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, 
SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 
MX with 515.
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Something that has come to my attention (slowly and surely over time) that there is no article on the history of the fandom in Ireland, the creation of Octocon, what came before, the locally big names etc etc.
I have recently been approached by someone who has an archive and who was involved since the 70s to see what can be done. I know I spoke with another editor about the creation of an article about the history and so I just want to drop a point here to see who else would be interested in helping ensuring that a good quality article which covers a period and genre of Irish history gets covered. This may also include a certain amount of looking at what should be done with any books/pamphlets/posters or other historical documentation that we may personally hold.
Please let me know if you are interested in helping?
I'm going to ping Bastun and SeoR as being people who have an interest in this area, and Smirkybec as someone with experience of Irish history and scholarship. Probably some of this is non wiki specific so also a question is whether do complete all conversations on the wiki or offline since only the final outcome of an article here is related to the wiki itself. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 08:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
PS- I'm going to store details User:Antiqueight/In Progress so be my guest if you want to add anything or point to anything about Irish fandom, stick it in there ☕ Antiqueight chatter 12:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antiqueight. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello Antiqueight,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you created the article for Nina Kamneva but used the name from a different version Wikipedia (instead of the standard transliteration for Russian employed by English Wikipedia - her native name is Нина Алексеевна Камнева, so the title her should be Nina Kamneva not Nina Kámneva. But don't worry too much about that). Anyway, I thought you might want to consider writing some more WiR articles for English from Russian Wikipedia. Here are a few articles that you might want to consider taking up:
- Klavdiya Nechaeva (in Russian) - female fighter pilot who flew in Stalingrad
- Mariya Fortus (in Russian) - WWII partisan and chief of staff of the "night witches"
- Irina Dryagina (in Russian) - Squadron commissar of the "night witches"
- Mariya Runt (in Russian) - Party organizer of the "night witches"
- Aleksandra Khoroshilova (in Russian) - senior squadron technician in armaments of the "night witches"
- Lyubov Olkhovskaya (in Russian) - squadron commander from the "night witches"
- Polina Makagon (in Russian) - squadron commander from the "night witches"
- Mariya Mikhalyova (in Russian) - co-pilot of Mariya Nesterenko
- Praskovya Savelieva (in Russian) - partisan
- Olga Sholokhova (in Russian) - dive bomber squadron commander, one of nine women awarded the order of Aleksandr Nevsky
- Natalya Kachuevskaya (in Russian)
I can help with translations, transliteration, sourcing, and finding photos for the articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 I'll give some of them a go but I can't promise. I suck at translations from Russian and google isn't always the best. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've been doing translations from Russian Wikipedia for a few years and become familiar with google translate's shorthand and meanings. I'll be happy to read and check your articles or drafts if you want.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 I'll give some of them a go but I can't promise. I suck at translations from Russian and google isn't always the best. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 - I haven't actually done any of these yet - I've been reading a few and they are certainly my kind of articles but I'm going to need more time for those and I was running behind on my goal of one per day (on average). I'm going to need to get ahead on that for some of these because they have more detail in them (and I will get distracted reading about the night witches because I love them). But if, and only if, you are feeling interested/generous, I have mangled a few that you might cast your eye over and see what improvements you could see - Erna Daugaviete and Valentina Khetagurova. I'm aware I chose the Latvian spelling for the first there - I'm using the spelling off wikidata for the second. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 I just did Claudia Nechaeva but it needs help being tied into other articles - the transliteration of her name came out differently too.. Check for me?? Should I move it? I got it from the Russian translation... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 13:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain the transliteration to me, cause I don't get it. It came out differently in almost every place I found her name. I was never sure which was right but since transliteration is sort of supposed to mimic how her name would sound in languages which use a different alphabet, (and since the name is a derivative of Claudius) why is the version you selected spelled so that it doesn't sound the same if said in English... when transliterating into English...(puzzled, not challenging) ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- This chart is a good explanation for the system on Wikipedia. A few helpful tips to keep in mind - 1. Don't use google translate for names. It will not romanize the names, it will often give the English counterpart version of names (like "Eugene" for the Russian name "Yevgeny/Евгений", "Andrew" for "Andrey/Андрей" even though they are not Russian names). 2. Keep in mind that the only time we use "c" in Russian names is with "ch" for the "ч" letter - the russian letter "к" is always romanized as "k". And "я" should be "ya". While Claudia is the name used in the Anglo word instead of Klavdiya, because the biography in question is a Russian biography, the name should have been romanized to "Klavdiya", not converted to "Claudia", since her name isn't . (Клавдия broken down by letter and romanized is K-l-a-v-d-i-ya, not C-l-a-u-d-i-a - we never switch the "v" for a "u") Unfortunately, Wikipedia can make this whole romanization thing VERY confusing, because Wikidata will often put the french or polish spelling of a Russian name (which has very different romanization rules) in the english Wikidata parameter. If you have a list of Russian names that you want the correct versions to be used on Wikipedia, don't be afraid to ask. Just remember to always look at the original form of the Russian name and romanize it based on the Russian procunciation, not what english names are closest or what gobbly-gook Wikidata spits out. Below are a list of common Russian given names and their standard romanizations on Wikipedia
| Russian name | Standard romanization | Common wrong versions/ do not use in new articles:* |
|---|---|---|
| Евгений | Yevgeny | Eugene |
| Григорий | Grigory | Gregory, Grigori |
| Георгий | Georgy | George, Georgi |
| Андрей | Andrey | Andrew |
| Мария | Mariya | Mary, Marie, etc |
| Клавдия | Klavdiya | Claudia |
| Полина | Polina | Paulina |
| Ольга | Olga | Ol'ga |
| Наталья | Natalya | Natalie |
| Надежда | Nadezhda | Hope |
| Вера | Vera | Faith |
| Екатерина | Yekaterina* | Catherine, Catherina, Katerina, etc |
| Анна | Anna | Ana, Annie |
| Татьяна | Tatyana | Tatiana |
| Алексей | Aleksey | various |
| Василий | Vasily | various |
| Павел | Pavel | Paul |
| Юрий | Yuri** | Yurij, etc |
| Николай | Nikolai** | Nicolas* |
- Royal names Catherine the Great should not be changed to "Yekaterina the Great" due to the prevalance of that version. Royal names tend to be translated instead of romanized (status thing or something, IDK exactly why)
- Names ending -ий are almost always romanized as -y, with "Yuri" being the one notable exception (Yuri by far the standard spelling), presumably due wanting to avoid pronunciation confusion. й is usually romanized as y like in the case of Алексей/Aleksey, Сергей/Sergey, and Андрей/Andrey but in the case of Николай being Nikolai instead of Nikolay is the other major exception (with Nikolai being the common spelling of Николай), presumably also for pronunciation reasons. Hope this helps.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
- The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
- Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.
Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 
MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am new to this platform and I will be glad if you can assist me. I check through some of the articles you have written and I will be glad if you can review and edit some of my writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesNotin (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- JamesNotin Commented over on your talk page. Have a read, check out the tutorials. Depending on what you hope to achieve from editing, I may be more or less about to help but I'll give you a hand for sure. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Antiqueight. That was a very useful (and very tactful) post you added at Talk:Irish nationalism. I wonder would you be willing to copy it to this discussion at WikiProject Ireland? There are two other articles involved, and the same issues have arisen at both of those. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh good, I wasn't sure. I saw the other two as well. I'm not a good person, Scolaire, to put in a unionist/nationalist discussion in general as I have strong knee jerk reactions on the topic. So I'm trying to stay out of the content side of things there... though there is a good chance I'll break and dump an opinion in there at some point! I'll put a reference to it on the Project Ireland page. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Scolaire, I don't think I was able to get there in time (phone call) so I've had to leave a variation on a theme in both. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 19:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I reorganized refs at Anna Ross, putting each source next to the text that it pertains to. I also added information about Louisa Brunton: although she is barely relevant to Anna's article, we might as well make the connection. Much more important, however, is that the Folger library cite states that her eldest daughter was Elizabeth Yates. Please check this and tell me that I'm not misreading it! A couple of the sources were simply repetitive and I removed them. If you click on the Edit tab at the Anna Ross article, you will see a question that I left you about one of the sources that I don't have access to. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I can't access that source anymore either so I don't remember what it said. I think it was talking about the thematic role of Ross's character of Charlotte in The Cottagers. And yes, that reading seems correct. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 09:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, you wrote in Anna's article: "Brunton acted in London at Covent Garden Theatre but mostly performed in Norwich and Brighton." This is a very important sentence, but it lacks detail. Can you add any sources for this and, also, can you expand it to mention some productions in which she performed? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think this came mostly from this with this. I don't know a lot more than I originally put in. Though looking at it with a fresh I may get more at some point. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 10:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! By the way, you do not need the language parameter in your cites if the work is in English, only if it is in a foreign language. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ssilvers That is from citer more than likely. I rarely hand code citations :-) ☕ Antiqueight chatter 08:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! By the way, you do not need the language parameter in your cites if the work is in English, only if it is in a foreign language. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Antiqueight,
I am the official author of the Jane Hogarth entry for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB). You have entirely paraphrased my entry and findings which are the result of years of academic research. The wiki article is derived in full from the ODNB entry and you incorrectly paraphrase in many instances. Not only is the Wiki article problematic, it presents a true disregard for and neglect of proper academic conduct. I am writing to request that you delete the wiki article as it infringes upon my rights as well as those of the ODNB.
Dr. C. S. Martinez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.132.249 (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thanks for all you have done to add women in Wikipedia. I have added bios of women mathematicians and computer scientists and recently wrote about a woman conductor, as you know.
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;- Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is 
Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. 
The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with 
Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were 
Hog Farm (submissions), 
HaEr48 (submissions), 
Harrias (submissions) and 
Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
- Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
-
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2. - The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 | 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
Hello Antiqueight,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
