User talk:Kingsif

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This editor is a Most Perfect Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain and Cigarette Burn.

Talk:Lake Ptolemy/GA1

Kingsif, this review didn't get very far, has not been added to for over two months, and when I queried the reviewer at User talk:Vami IV#Your open GA reviews, they requested that I find a new reviewer for this one. Please let me know if you don't think you'll be able to take this one on; I noticed that you opened three new reviews about 40 hours ago. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm writing up the comments for some other reviews, and am otherwise "busy", so I don't think I'll be able to get to it very soon. If it still needs a reviewer in late August, I could do it. Kingsif (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it will, since we're in mid-August. Please give it a try when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Another thing about the Top 25

Hello again, Rebestalic

I'll make it short: That was quick 😂

Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 23:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And I thought it was a slower one! Thanks for keeping them up :) Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude, someone made a tool that compiles the numbers from that page, no need for you to do things manually (although I don't know when it updates for you - in my timezone it's noon). There's some slight number difference, I'll fix them. igordebraga ≠ 22:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Yeah, I've been using the top 1000 (and I added it to the About page in case others wanted to), but because it doesn't count redirects, I've been manually checking pageviews, to make them more accurate. I did wonder why the figures were still being tagged as 'estimates' on the record page, but if you didn't know I'd been doing this, I can see why! Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The estimates are because the one true tool for pageviews, which apparently has some added quirks for accuracy, has been down since January. igordebraga ≠ 22:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, from what I can see that tool also automatically excludes likely bot views etc. (like the Bible the last couple months) Kingsif (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile Rebestalic comes way late because he forgot to watch this page and gets a lesson on how to seem big-brained

My take on addressing BLP disputes

Hi Kingsif. I'm sorry the discussion has gone as it has. I hope you don't mind if I comment here on your talk page.

Given the requirements of WP:BLP, I expect editors arguing for inclusion of content to identify high-quality references for the information, quoting the relevant material if needed. From my perspective, that has still not been done in this case. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind, you genuinely seem to mean well, though I still find that your requests haven't been clear. If you've left more messages at the Top 25 talk page since I did, I haven't read there yet.

I understand the need for references, but I don't know what you would like to see references to support, is what I mean. I don't think that anyone is disputing that Susan Rice sold Netflix shares a few weeks ago, and a simple check of pageviews shows that the day after (UTC), her article got more views (well, I say simple); I can provide you more references for the Netflix sales, but I wouldn't think any mainstream source is going to have a headline about WP pageviews in this case. I also don't want to weaponize the format of the Top 25 in this discussion, but I'm sure you've noticed there are many bios and news stories that involve living people on the list, and that the page does not regularly use any form of referencing - I've been reading the list for a long time but only in June, I think, started contributing to it: its style was established long before my involvement. Sometimes urls are used in the notes when it's strange (or too complex for a summary). I wonder if you mean references for any political nature of the news item? Again, nothing was being insinuated - nor do I see the text to be something one could read such intent into unless actively looking for it - and I even expanded the text to more explicitly say so (my efforts in that regard were met with preposterous from the other user).

@Hipal: I'll ping you here in case you haven't put this on your watchlist, and I would appreciate a response as to exactly what you would like to see references for? And anything else on the matter; a discussion has been started and I try to contribute and see a beneficial resolution when there are clear good intentions. Thanks for coming to me like this, Kingsif (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for references that support the material in dispute. The Fortune ref is it so far, which doesn't support either version of the disputed content provided. Further, nothing indicates it was anything more than trivia, nor that it stood out as an item of interest at the time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

For reference, I'll add the disputed text here, version 2 then version 1:

Rice's profile rose as a possible Joe Biden running mate. She was prominently in the news, getting more pageviews, when she had to explain to the rumor mill that selling some Netflix shares was not a political move, something that really shouldn't have been in doubt.

Another candidate to be Joe Biden's VP pick, this week Rice sold her shares in Netflix. She made bank, then announced that the sale was not politically motivated.

Statements in these: 1. Rice was a potential VP candidate. 2. There was news about her selling Netflix shares in the week Aug. 2 – 8. 3. Rice's team announced there was no political motivation. 4. She would not have had to make such an announcement under other circumstances (added after a user claimed the first version was political innuendo, which... what?)

Wall Street Journal said Susan Rice, believed to be a top contender to be Joe Biden's vice presidential running mate, has sold a significant proportion of the Netflix Inc. shares she has acquired [...] a spokesperson [said] "the sale has nothing to do with VP speculation" on Aug. 7, so that supports #1–3.

While #4 is a bit more of the tongue-in-cheek element of the Top 25, and, arguably, the explanation from her team that Rice filed to sell stock options 3 months earlier is a subtle "we shouldn't have to say this, but here's a justification", let's look for refs; Bloomberg connects the "not political" statement to wanting to ward off a potential scandal because of how close the VP selection was, as does Barron's, and Deadline.

For timing/relevance for inclusion on Top 25 pageviews: Rice publicly disclosed that she sold the shares on Aug. 5, and news started taking hold on Aug. 6, before the "not political" announcement on Aug. 7. Here's the article's August pageviews (to Aug. 17).

@Hipal: Kingsif (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Much, much better. Thank you.

She would not have had to make such an announcement under other circumstances That's your OR and it shows how trivial it is. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As said, that part was trying to appease the other user, but it is reflected in some of those sources... take it as shorthand for the more article-space appropriate "media suggested that Rice's representatives made the statement so as to ward off any scandal related to the Democrat VP selection, in which Rice was a frontrunner, to take place the following week".

I don't see how you get trivial. Hmm. The thing about the Top25 is that it can't always be given amazing sources, the same way actual academic analysis on social-oriented stats looks strongly at correlation and 'what we know about people'. I do think you're holding it to a too-high standard. E.g., this is the first week Alexander Hamilton has been out of the Top25 since the first week of July. We know it was there so long because the Broadway movie of Hamilton was released July 3 and he must have been popular since. Will there be any August sources for that? No. But there's no other reasonable answer for why Hamilton would get so many pageviews then otherwise. Similarly, why would Rice be in the Top25 the week before the VP pick when Harris and other popular candidates weren't? Or why Karen Bass was the only one of them in the Top25 the week before that? Not the politics, the media circus. When our pageviews are the data, there's only so much that can be supported from elsewhere. But I fear this is getting into a philosophical debate about the Top25 list; it's only rarely seen complaints that I know of, so two in one week was a surprise. And it hasn't changed how it operates since 2013, so if my explanations don't suffice, perhaps you can (genuine suggestion for peace of mind) just go back to ignoring it? Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A lonely "(659)" in your contribution to 35 mm movie film

Thank you for adding the "Level 4" section "Becoming the standard" to 35 mm movie film.

There seems to be a lonely "(659)" after the first sentence of the last paragraph of the new section (the sentence ends with "further cementing it as the standard"). It seems that the 659 might be part of a citation. Could you check, please? Rfcstein (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Shaun of the Dead

Hello. I apologise to bother you, but recently, I read the article, and although it belongs to the category "Parodies of horror", there is no information/source/citation that would support that claim. I checked, and it seems that the edit was made by an IP user who had some issues with adding unsourced content and categories to various articles. Additionally, Simon Pegg stated it is not a parody (the source: 1, 2, 3). Still, some other sources say it is (e.g., Karen A. Ritzenhoff, Angela Krewani, The Apocalypse in Film: Dystopias, Disasters, and Other Visions about the End of the World, p. 89). I wanted to remove the category, but I decided to discuss it with you. Thank you. --89.66.254.10 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - if you've assessed the sources and think that it doesn't belong in the category (I guess British humour and parody can be hard to distinguish) then go ahead and remove it. Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Flagstaff, Arizona

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of Flagstaff, Arizona you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Flagstaff, Arizona

The article History of Flagstaff, Arizona you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of Flagstaff, Arizona for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:La Casa de las Flores soundtrack cover.jpg

The file File:La Casa de las Flores soundtrack cover.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in The House of Flowers (TV series)#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE and MOS:TVPRODUCTION.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

RD as blurb

By crash the internet, I meant actually cause service disruption. See Death of Michael Jackson#Media and Internet coverage and the similar disruption happened with Kobe. I used to have a much lower bar but our failure to post the death of John Lewis has made me jaded. The idea of a transformative figure is very subjective. I must oppose posting Chadwick Boseman because it would have been an affront considering Lewis. As a POC, if I was a reader and I noticed that Boseman receive a more respected treatment than Lewis, I would be offended. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Ah, I assumed you were using the figurative "crash the internet", which I was skeptical of. (RDs as blurbs seem to have been climbing in need for various standards of notability recently, which I don't really like) Kingsif (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Chadwick Boseman

Hi, Kingsif. Happy to do the footnote any way you think makes the most sense, but we do need to move that footnote out of the infobox, as per MOS. Could we collaborate on this? Would you like to do it? Would you like me to?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Yeah, you can do it - just name the note like a ref rather than duplicate it. On the MOS, though, isn't it just that smaller text is advised against in infoboxes, and that footnotes, like refs, are fine. A similar issue occurred on the article for Naya Rivera about her death date. I added the note there in the lead and infobox, and it was removed from the lead with the reason it did not belong in the lead just the infobox. Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Kings. I'll do that and I'll go to Naya Rivera and back you up on that — the death date should be cited in the article body and not the infobox. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm misunderstanding what you mean. The only way I know to do a footnote that contains multiple cites is the way that footnote is formatted now. The name of the cite isn't the issue; it's the location of the cite. I apologize for not understanding; could you explain it more specifically, or alternately move the footnote? With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Done at Naya Rivera, which also contains a large number of cite-format errors. I've worked through a few and will work through more later.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Undone all that, with reasons. Okay, so you can name a footnote just like you can name a ref. But I guess I'll do that for you. Kingsif (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WGA screenwriting credit system

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article WGA screenwriting credit system you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Statue of Almanzor, Algeciras

On 1 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Statue of Almanzor, Algeciras, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Spanish city of Algeciras took down a statue of a medieval Islamic Spanish ruler for restoration in 2013 and has yet to put it back? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Statue of Almanzor, Algeciras), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

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) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cai Lun/GA1

Kingsif, I hope you are well. I have no idea what your schedule's like these days, but this nomination was taken and quickly passed when it shouldn't have been. The original reviewer has reverted their passage and bowed out, and I was wondering whether you'd be willing to take it on. There are prose issues, as I've noted on the review page, but it's an interesting subject/person, and I think the nominator will be willing to work on issues should you take it on. If it isn't feasible, let me know and I'll put out a second-opinion call. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a little more free now! I'll take a look, I think I was pinged to another film GAN review that's been abandoned, but I'll try to get through both :) Kingsif (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Kerr Hewitt

On 4 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kerr Hewitt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in both his 2010 film roles, Kjartan Hewitt's characters notably attend a Broken Social Scene concert? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kerr Hewitt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Cite positioning re quote

Apparently MOS:BLOCKQUOTE does back that up, so I won't argue with it, but I must admit I am rather surprised it claims the way you did it is "more usual". I cite blockquotes at the bottom, largely because a lot of the academic and legal writing I've used as sources do it that way, and I've seen a lot of other editors do it that way, so I thought it was standard. I wonder if that section of the MOS was written a long time ago.

I won't make an issue of it, but I do wonder if the MOS should revisit that as a lot of people don't seem to be following that particular part. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is an old part of the MOS, from when people used different templates/formatting and putting a ref at the end would mess it up, but I still find it simpler to go back to it :) No problem, and thanks for the review. Kingsif (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Agron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your helpfulness and disposition. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:HickoryOughtShirt and User:evrik submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

We nominate Kingsif to be Editor of the Week for their diligence in upkeeping Wikipedia's quality. He has edited for a couple of years and has close to 26000 edits with 56% in mainspace. Beyond their numerous GAs, impact on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and their assistance with NPR, they also lend a helping hand to newer editors and provide items for WP:In The Know. He is an active participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. What specifically caught our attention was their contributions to Talk:Laura Harrier/GA1 (and this). We need editors like Kingsif to keep the encyclopedia running.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 10:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)