Jump to content

User talk:Feminist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
In The News recognition
Did You Know articles
This user An alternative to "helped" in the "This user helped..." description "Basic economy" An alternative to "become" in the "become a good article" description a good article on The date the article was promoted to Good Article (optional).
Good Articles contributed to
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎RfD closure: new section
→‎RfD closure: one more bit
Line 191: Line 191:
== RfD closure ==
== RfD closure ==


Hi, would you please consider revising your closure located at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#TERF-related redirects]]? That venue is not the venue for reaching consensus on what articles should cover what topics, and more importantly, other participants were not aware that re-working articles (rather than redirect pointings regarding existing articles) was seriously being decided. I would have opposed such a proposal, as explained [[Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics/Archive_6#Do_we_need_a_separate_article_on_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism?|here]] by me and others, and anyway, it is more properly handled by a request to split. This does not necessitate altering the conclusion about where the redirects should point. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, would you please consider revising your closure located at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#TERF-related redirects]]? That venue is not the venue for reaching consensus on what articles should cover what topics, and more importantly, other participants were not aware that re-working articles (rather than redirect pointings regarding existing articles) was seriously being decided. I would have opposed such a proposal, as explained [[Talk:Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics/Archive_6#Do_we_need_a_separate_article_on_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism?|here]] by me and others, and anyway, it is more properly handled by a request to split. The current setup is the result of many discussions by many more editors than were present at the RfD. This does not necessitate altering the conclusion about where the redirects should point. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:03, 24 March 2022

This page was last edited or modified by Crossroads (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) on Thursday 6:03:33 March 24, 2022 UTC.


Adding Alan_Grayson to the 2024 United States presidential election page

Hi Feminist, are you aware that Alan_Grayson is planning to run in the 2024 United States presidential election? You should certainly link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Grayson to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election I was unable to edit the page myself but I can get you details if necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnytimeAnnie (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnytimeAnnie, you may want to raise the issue on Talk:2024 United States presidential election so that other editors watching that page will be aware of it. Thanks! feminist (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Black Oxygen Organics

On 19 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black Oxygen Organics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Black Oxygen Organics sold packs of dirt to customers for US$110 each? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Oxygen Organics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Black Oxygen Organics), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 6,950 views (579.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Stand News

On 31 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Stand News, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 23:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National Republican Redistricting Trust

On 12 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National Republican Redistricting Trust, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Adam Kincaid of the National Republican Redistricting Trust defended lowered competition in US House elections, arguing that the changes would save the party money? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Republican Redistricting Trust. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, National Republican Redistricting Trust), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National Democratic Redistricting Committee

On 12 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the National Democratic Redistricting Committee supported lawsuits in North Carolina and Ohio against alleged gerrymandering by Republicans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Democratic Redistricting Committee. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, National Democratic Redistricting Committee), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats

Congratulations! We now have a dab page that doesn't list most of the likely intended targets, and a set index page which stops people noticing that links are aimed at the wrong target. I see no logic whatsoever in your moves, and nothing that actually helps either readers or editors. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is that List of Liberal Democratic parties already contains all the specific political parties that were originally listed on Liberal Democrats (disambiguation), and hence the disambiguation page is mostly redundant to the set index. But point taken regarding the DPL issue. I'll revert my edits later today. feminist (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. feminist (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Airline services

A tag has been placed on Category:Airline services indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 15:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sky Alps

On 20 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sky Alps, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sky Alps is the first airline to operate scheduled flights from Bolzano Airport since 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sky Alps. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sky Alps), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abigail Shapiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abigail Shapiro 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/Abigail Shapiro 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.

Transcendence (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Abigail Shapiro

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Abigail Shapiro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of 75 Wall Street

Hello! Your submission of 75 Wall Street at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bahnfrend (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Joseph Appelbaum

Thanks for reviewing the article. I want to fix it, but I'm not sure how to upgrade the inline citations: add more, translate the Hebrew text or write each site source more specific? --Adig-pt (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adig-pt: As a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP), there should ideally be at least one inline citation at the end of each paragraph. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 07:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it. Thanks for the fast and helpful answer! Adig-pt (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tuttle Capital Short Innovation ETF

On 13 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tuttle Capital Short Innovation ETF, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Tuttle Capital Short Innovation ETF is the first in the US to bet against another exchange-traded fund? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tuttle Capital Short Innovation ETF. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tuttle Capital Short Innovation ETF), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RM close of Dock

Hi! I'm really surprised by your close of Talk:Dock#Requested move 4 March 2022. How did you arrive at that decision? – Uanfala (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is 5-2 in support of the move on the basis that the maritime topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "dock". feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 14:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But those supporting didn't provide any evidence for that assertion, whereas the evidence that did get provided clearly showed that there was no primary topic with respect to usage. – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those supporting the move pointed out that the maritime dock has existed (i.e. began existing in the past and continues to exist) for thousands of years - an assertion that is unlikely to be challenged - hence concluding that the topic is primary with respect to long-term significance (substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). Under WP:PTOPIC, there is no requirement that a topic be primary with respect to both usage and long-term significance. According to Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome, If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it - and the view that the maritime topic is the primary topic for "dock" has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 15:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response. I do feel like our takeaways from the discussion and from these project pages are quite different. The dividing line in this RM wasn't between two groups, each of whom thought only one aspect of primary topics was important (that would have been odd: both aspects are always relevant, and we shouldn't disregard one of them simply because fewer people bothered to comment on it). What we have instead is one group who felt that one article had long-term significance (there was no acceptable evidence for that: as was already pointed out in the discussion, historical age is not determinative: WP:DPT). The other group similarly had a feeling, though in the opposite direction: no single topic having more significance, but that in turn matched the conclusively demonstrated fact that there was no primary topic with respect to usage. As the closing instructions point out, [c]onsensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, and closers should discount arguments that are based on personal opinion only. – Uanfala (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my understanding of WP:PTOPIC, there is a difference between "historical age" and "long-term significance". The former refers merely to how old a topic is without regard for its significance, e.g. Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) has historical age but is not the primary topic for "Anne Hathaway". The latter applies to topics which have existed for a long time and have remained significant over its period of existence, e.g. Apple is the PTOPIC over Apple Inc. both because of its age and because it has remained significant throughout its existence. It is acceptable to justify that the maritime topic is the PTOPIC for "dock" on the basis that it has remained significant on a long-term basis; in contrast, if the reasoning were "it existed thousands of years ago", then that would be a weak argument based merely on historical age.
With regards to usage, no one supporting the move justified it on the basis of no single topic having more significance; instead, they either regarded the maritime topic as the PTOPIC on the basis that a reader is more likely to seek the maritime topic than all other topics combined, or regarded this as a situation where usage alone does not indicate a PTOPIC. As far as I can see, there is no single way to determine whether something is highly likely ... to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, so I hesitate to agree that it is conclusively demonstrated ... that there was no primary topic with respect to usage.
In any case, WP:PTOPIC states that in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In other words, it is acceptable to regard a topic as PTOPIC even if it meets only one aspect of PTOPIC. In the RM discussion, no editor suggested that some other topic other than the maritime topic may be the PTOPIC for "dock". Hence, if there is rough consensus in an RM discussion that a topic is primary with respect to long-term significance, the discussion can appropriately be closed as move.
Anyway, it seems to me that we are going back-and-forth over this discussion without much progress towards agreement, so I'll take this to move review and let other editors have a go at it. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 18:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022 March#Dock for an outside opinion. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 18:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. Just a note that when when there is a disambiguation page at the base title, then we have access to data that tells us exactly what readers want when they land on that page: that's the clickstream dataset, which is visualised by Wikinav. For this type of RMs, these tools have largely rendered pageviews obsolete. – Uanfala (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this tool. It's not perfect because although it provides the source of incoming traffic (e.g. Google, Bing, etc.) it doesn't provide what the reader searched for in Google/Bing/other search engine. Because we don't know what the reader searched for to reach the WP article, we cannot always tell what the topic sought when a reader searches for that term is simply via clickstream data. Hence, web search results are still relevant to determining PTOPIC status with regards to usage (I prefer DuckDuckGo to minimize geographical differences). I agree that clickstream can be an especially useful tool than page views in situations where some topics can be referred to using multiple names. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking feedback on proposed edits

Hello, I see you've done some work on the Voto Latino article and I thought you would be a good person to seek feedback from about some edits I'm proposing. Full disclosure, I am a paid editor and as such, I've suggested edits to the Wilmer Valderrama article. He has worked with Voto Latino since the organization started but the article about his does not mention it, or any of his other activism work. Since many pages about famous people describe their activism and philanthropy, I've posted suggested sections on the talk page and requested review.

Talk:Wilmer_Valderrama

The review is still pending, but I wanted to seek the feedback of experienced editors who contribute to related articles. I would love to know if you think the content is acceptable so I can work on it if necessary. Any feedback would be helpful. Thanks. SBCornelius (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Grace Ho

Hello! Your submission of Grace Ho at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples at Ladder (option combination)

I saw your feedback at DYK that the article is somewhat technical. It's true that this is partly unavoidable given the topic, but I've added some examples to the article to hopefully make it a little less abstract and easier to understand. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 14:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 75 Wall Street

On 22 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 75 Wall Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an excavation for 75 Wall Street (pictured) revealed an old crock linked with a leader of the Tammany Hall political machine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/75 Wall Street. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 75 Wall Street), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD closure

Hi, would you please consider revising your closure located at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#TERF-related redirects? That venue is not the venue for reaching consensus on what articles should cover what topics, and more importantly, other participants were not aware that re-working articles (rather than redirect pointings regarding existing articles) was seriously being decided. I would have opposed such a proposal, as explained here by me and others, and anyway, it is more properly handled by a request to split. The current setup is the result of many discussions by many more editors than were present at the RfD. This does not necessitate altering the conclusion about where the redirects should point. Crossroads -talk- 06:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Feminist&oldid=1078955737"