Contents |
---|
Contents
|
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interaction Design and Architecture(s)
Hi FormalDude,
I do not understand why the page has been moved to the draft space. It is perfectly consistent with all other pages devoted to open-source journals already published on Wikipedia. Please have a look at those listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals (you can click on any one and have a look at how they are composed; The main sections used by other journals have been integrated and used also for Interaction Design and Architecture(s) and only essential information provided. Could you be so kind to suggest the changes that in your opinion should be done before submitting the draft for review? Thanks in advance.
Edechiconza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edechiconza (talk • contribs) 08:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Edechiconza, you have provided one citation to the draftified article, please read WP:V and WP:GNG. Additionally, please also read WP:Conflict of interest, if you have a conflict of interest to the subject, you are expected to disclose them, see the linked article for more info. Justiyaya 14:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should expand on the process on what you should do before submitting an article
- If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, please first disclose them.
- Make sure the subject meets our notability guidelines
- Ensure that all information likely to be challenged is supported by a reliable source
- Ensure that all information is written in a neutral tone (WP:NPOV)
- Submit and wait for reivew
- Many articles I've looked at on the page you provided is flawed and needs to be cleaned up significantly, some possibly deleted. Writing an new article is really really challenging process for beginners, consider trying another task here, happy editing! Justiyaya 14:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the hints.
- I have declared the conflict of interest;
- all information can be verified by means of the indexing journal websites (some of them allow to link a direct page, others allow only to use the search engine and in one case (ESCI) you need an account to access the full details); I do not think that we need to add additional links to information that anyone can verify by accessing the indexing journal websites (the latter, by the way, have been linked in the article to the relevant wikipedia pages)
- the text is written in complete neutral tone, hope this will be appreciated by the reviewers.
- Since we don't know what we can do to improve further the article (we haven't found examples of additional wikipedia articles dedicated to similar topics from which take inspiration), we are going to submit it and wait for the review. Edechiconza (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Edechiconza: Please read WP:Notability (academic journals) in full. ––FormalDude talk 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear FormalDude
- let's start from the two first sentences of the article you have suggested:
- If an academic journal can be demonstrated to be impactful via reliable sources, we should probably have a dedicated article on it.
- Being indexed in DOAJ does not demonstrate the reliability and the impact of an academic journal, but being indexed in Scopus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus) and Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Sources_Citation_Index) yes.
- I do not know how familiar are you with the reliability of the academic journals but, for example, to get indexed in Scopus it takes, often, more than two years. The journal is monitored for a long period, has to undergone a severe scrutiny by scientific committees and has to respect many strict criteria. This the reason why scholars all over the world are asked to publish their works in Scopus indexed journals.
- Moreover Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_Rank) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where the citations come from.
- According to SJR Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal is by large more influent of many of the journals listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals.
- Just to give you an idea, Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal ranks as 36th in the world for the Architecture/Design domain (first quartile) and pretty well also for all other domains of interest (2nd quartile in Media Technology and Social Science - 3rd quartile for Human Computer Interaction, Computer Science applications and Education.
- Scopus, SJR and ESCI are the most reliable and noticeable third-party sources to legitimate the reliability and impact of an academic journal.
- Articles on academic journals are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as established by reliable sources.
- Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal, however, is not only notable but it is also unusual enough and worthy to be noticed for many reasons, here at least a couple:
- - most of the open access Scopus indexed journals can be considered to have a "commercial" purpose since the publisher ask the authors to pay a fee to have the submitted papers published, while Interaction Design and Architecture(s) implements the diamond route with no expenses to access and publish papers. Papers are selected only on a scientific basis, after a rigorous double blind reviewing process and a check against malpractices;
- - Interaction Design and Architecture(s) is one of the few (maybe no more than five) academic journals in the world that implements video presentations of the published papers (the only one in their domains of interest); of course all video are open access and available on-line.
- Coming now to the listed criteria
- Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
- Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
- Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
- Criterion 1 has been fully demonstrates (see above)
- Criterion 2 is also fulfilled if you consider that the journal h-index is 14 (of course it could be improved but can be considered quite good for the domains of reference and in comparison to most of the open access journal (in particular those listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals).
- Criterium 3 should be considered in relation to the year in which the journal has been established (2005): in 17 years, thanks also to the achieved rankings can be considered quite important in the subject areas of interest (for some of them more, for some of them less; but it is well known in all domains of reference).
- Note that Journal age is not a consideration, and in general a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by its age.
- Considering all that, we do really hope that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) could be applied with equity to all wikipedia articles, in particular those concerning open access journals and that this article can be accepted.
- In any case do not hesitate to indicate any additional effort that can be done to improve further the quality of the article. Thanks.
- Looking forward Edechiconza (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Edechiconza: Please read WP:Notability (academic journals) in full. ––FormalDude talk 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should expand on the process on what you should do before submitting an article
The Signpost: 29 May 2022
- News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board electionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/News and notes
- Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board electionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Community view
- Opinion: The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparencyWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
- Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the warWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Special report
- In focus: Measuring gender diversity in Wikipedia articlesWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/In focus
- Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and moreWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Discussion report
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisitedWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/WikiProject report
- Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikisWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Technology report
- Featured content: Featured Content of AprilWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Featured content
- Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysedWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Recent research
- Tips and tricks: The reference desks of WikipediaWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Tips and tricks
- Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lowsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Traffic report
- News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announcedWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/News from Diff
- News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/News from the WMF
- Video: How the entire country of Qatar was blocked from editingWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Video
- Gallery: Diving under the sea for World Oceans DayWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Gallery
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Endwise (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transphobia
I was trying to avoid inclusion of toxic material, like, "you know it was one of your sisters who killed those kids", and I also wanted to avoid pandering to the conspiracy theorists, "Other social media posts accused the parents and teachers of being crisis actors". 48Pills (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page mover granted
Hello, FormalDude. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
- Wikipedia:Requested moves
- Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your GA nomination of The Melodic Blue
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Melodic Blue 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your GA nomination of The Melodic Blue
The article The Melodic Blue you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Melodic Blue for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Laban-Media (09:47, 7 June 2022)
Hello mentor . I don't see my article published. Is it deleted or should i be patient? --Laban-Media (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AFC/R partial accept
Hey! I saw that you mentioned to follow the review instructions in your edit summary and closed the request for Logan. I had accepted 2 of the redirects out of 4, but I wanted to leave the other 2 for others who felt more comfortable reviewing them. How should I handle (or should I even handle) these partial reviews? Thanks! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I think it's fine to leave it open then. I restored your edit. ––FormalDude talk 22:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
roy hargrove article
hey, i hope this talk message finds you well and in good spirits. i wanted to ask about the earfood article redirect. was it because of notability ? if so, i found several additional publications that reviewed and analysed the album and its significance, including a New York Times column[1] and this academic publication that used the album as an important fixture in Hargrove's career and artistic development.[2] there's a few others, but i truly believe roy hargrove would benefit from having a page dedicated to this album. what notability standards or other should be met to make this happen ? all the best !! Ayyydoc (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ayyydoc. The notability standards for articles about albums can be found at WP:NALBUM. I'd suggest starting the article as a draft through the articles for creation process so that it may be reviewed by other editors. ––FormalDude talk 22:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
- ^ Chinen, Nate. "CRITICS' CHOICE; New CDs". The New York Times. The New York Times Company.
{{cite web}}
: Text "Roy Hargrove Quartet" ignored (help) - ^ Wade, Steven (August 2011). Commercial jazz trumpet style: A comparison of leading trumpeters Freddie Hubbard and Roy Hargrove. California State University, Long Beach: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. ISBN 978-1-124-99491-8.
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Queenstown/Komani RM
Hi FD. Can I ask you take another look at this RM? You wrote "There is no consensus that up-to-date reliable references predominantly use one name over the other". WP:COMMONNAME talks about what to do in that situation -- apply PAGs -- and I felt that participants did that (applied PAGs like WP:MPN and WP:NAMECHANGES), but you didn't address that second part of the analysis in your close. Thanks, Levivich 02:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, Levivich, I'm happy to elaborate.
- WP:MPN is the main guideline I was referring to in my closure.
- WP:NAMECHANGES states "
If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in 'Use commonly recognizable names'.
" I closed it as no consensus because there was not agreement one way or the other in this aspect. - The only part of WP:COMMONNAME that appears to talk about what to do in this situation is "
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
" I don't find this relevant as there was no substantial or persistent arguments made about potential problems with either name. ––FormalDude talk 03:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks. "Substantial or persistent arguments"? I'm not sure I saw any arguments that were insubstantial, and persistence isn't really a requirement, right? I saw broad agreement that there were multiple common names, which allowed editors to choose from among those names. I further saw both numerical and substantive agreement to choose the newer one, with supporters pointing to a number of PAGs that suggested going with the new name. The way I read your close, it seems like unless it's proven that it's the most common name, there can be no consensus? Otherwise why not go with the majority? Were the opposers' arguments stronger than the supporters? Levivich 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Levivich: I do not at all see "broad agreement that there were multiple common names." Editors claimed that there was one clear common name, but they did not agree if it was Queenstown or Komani.
- A successful move does not necessarily require proving the most common name, rather, there just has to be a policy-backed consensus that one should be used over the other. Given the differing justifications for arguments from both sides, I don't see that here.
- It's not a majority vote, so I can only consider the substance of each comment. To that extent, neither side's argument was particularly stronger than the others (hence the outcome of no consensus). ––FormalDude talk 05:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised you didn't see agreement that both names were common. What did you make of the Google web search, Google scholar search, Google trends, and I think over a dozen sources that participants looked at? It seemed they all showed both names in use, and no one suggested that either of the names was not common. The whole discussion appeared to me to center around which of two common names to choose. I don't want to belabor the point, but I think participants raised a lot of ALLCAPSBLUELINKS (more than we've discussed here) in examining which of the two common names to go with, and a majority agreed that policies and guidelines backed the newer name. It seems to me that your analysis only looks at whether everyone agrees one name was more common than the other and doesn't address all those other policy reasons. I'll leave it there. Levivich 06:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. "Substantial or persistent arguments"? I'm not sure I saw any arguments that were insubstantial, and persistence isn't really a requirement, right? I saw broad agreement that there were multiple common names, which allowed editors to choose from among those names. I further saw both numerical and substantive agreement to choose the newer one, with supporters pointing to a number of PAGs that suggested going with the new name. The way I read your close, it seems like unless it's proven that it's the most common name, there can be no consensus? Otherwise why not go with the majority? Were the opposers' arguments stronger than the supporters? Levivich 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Megan Huntsman
Do not delete Megan Huntsman as the article is better put together than other existing articles about serial killers and her case is notable and infamous with a YouTube video about her having 1.3 million views. Shktriib1 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shktriib1: I'm not deleting it, I merely started the discussion. Please voice your concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Huntsman. ––FormalDude talk 00:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basel Adra
You are correct - the article had been tagged for uncontroversial deletion, as opposed to a deletion discussion. My bad hasty judgement.Blue Riband► 13:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. ––FormalDude talk 13:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]