User talk:Yngvadottir
 Archives (Index) |
A fox for you![edit]
Thanks so much for updating Jeffrey Veregge's article to restore his S'Klallam membership to the need - I would have done that myself had I checked my watchlist earlier. MOS:ETHNICITY even has a note saying that if a person has tribal citizenship it should be mentioned in the lead.
ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're very welcome! I hadn't seen that note, actually, just a point about Spanish regions. In the meantime I've started a section on talk with a fuller explanation of my actions (partly because I'm worried the internationalization part of my edit may have been unintentionally disrespectful), and pinged the editor who made the change. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Star of the Sea School and *another* question on English variants[edit]
Following our chat, I've made the Star of the Sea School disambig. Can you red pen it? My computer and spell-checker were at war with putting a period at the end of the points. I was going to format it to align with Woodrow Wilson High School, but since the listed schools had disambigs in their titles, I expanded it.
I have another language-related question. I understand the importance of using the English variant that is closely connected to the subject. How do disambig pages work? If there are two planes both named "TheSpaceplane," one British and one American, would the disambiguation be as follows?
- TheSpaceplane (Yngva Airlines), British aeroplane
- TheSpaceplane (Dottir Airlines), American airplane
If there are two wide-waterfall 'valves that release water' both named "TheSpacebar," one British and one American, would the disambiguation be as follows?
- TheSpacebar (Yngva Plumbing), British tap
- TheSpacebar (Dottir Plumbing), American faucet
TheSpacebook (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TheSpacebook: Internationaliz/se :-) ... "aircraft", "plumbing fixture".
- I'll check the page after getting some coffee into me. (Someone else may have already done so, since it will come up on the NPP list.) But turn off autocorrect. Seriously. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Ms. Fifty Thousand[edit]
jp×g🗯️ 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- LOL. Less almost $1,000 deleted. Thank you for noticing :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Nervously anticipating your red pen[edit]
Per your request, I created the article on Charley Hill (detective). I was surprised that it hadn't been created previously. I would like to mention that this article was probably the worst one to be assigned to me because of which English variant to use. I went with British English, but I have a draft in American English ready if you think it needs changing. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, there's a stronger case for British, I think :-) Congratulations on writing one of the many articles that Wikipedia should indeed already have had! Yngvadottir (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
A BLP question whilst we're here[edit]
It is of public record that we have had disagreements when interpreting BLP policy when it comes to the presuming in the favor of privacy (of things such as addresses... 🤣). If someone doesn't have an article, do they get named or not? In the article I didn't name the prisoner that helped with finding the painting, nor did I name any of Hill's living family members, such as his widow. Often I see infoboxes which list spouses, so I erred with caution and didn't name anyone. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- A fast answer ... I err on the side of privacy (for example I would also probably not have named informants, or former co-workers/bosses; and I don't name people's minor children). But the decisive factor is not whether they already have a Wikipedia article (this is a good example of why that's not a good guide on notability) or even whether they merit a red link in my judgement. As the big example, I do usually name people's life partners, and while carrying over the number of survivors from an obituary to the Personal life section is not encyclopedic writing, I do say how many children the person had. These are important biographical details, in my judgement (and including them for men works to offset the tendency to make a big deal about romantic history in biographies of women). Others undoubtedly differ in detail. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Follow-up question. Why are red links merited? Is there a policy (to encourage article creation)? They always look out of place to me. Hypocrite --> TheSpacebook (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:Red link says it emphatically and repeatedly at the start; they're a suggestion to fellow Wikipedians (who may not know an article is needed without one). They also assist with article creation; it's a lot easier to start a new article by clicking on a red link than by starting it in user space and then moving it, or by getting to the blank page at the right title by some other method. As you probably saw, I like to note in my edit summary when I've added a red link, to draw attention to it and to provide another place to click '-) When I was new, I thought they indicated a deleted page and removed a few for that reason, but admins are expected to remove them when they delete an article. And sometimes an article was deleted after a long-ago AfD and the topic has since become notable, or more clearly so; or it was an expired PROD and nobody noticed at the time to contest it. If someone later red links the same title or one of its redirects, clicking on the red link brings up the deletion edit summary and a link to the discussion, so the situation can be assessed (and for the PROD, it may be worth going to deletion review). On the other hand, there are some ridiculous red links out there, including trivial brand names and instances where a newbie used [[ where they should have used ''. So I do zap them sometimes. (And it's not a good idea to have them in places like the Notable people sections of settlement articles, and they're verboten in See also sections.) The one big downside to red links is that they are disturbing and frustrating for readers. Often this can be offset a bit by using an interlanguage link. (There's even a parameter for piped links.) This gives the reader a red link followed by one or more little official language abbrevs. leading to foreign-language Wikipedia coverage of the topic; some will be able to take advantage of those. On the other hand, Easter egg links directly to a foreign-language article are rude (as well as concealing from fellow editors here that the topic doesn't actually have an article here). I'm not about to edit the Red link page, but it shouldn't advise that as a valid alternative. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand why logged-in users see them, but I don't see the purpose of displaying red links to logged-out readers if they cannot create pages. That said, I have completed the Hill article and removed it from my watchlist, per me exhausting the sources I found. Additionally, I do not wish to continue excessively correcting my typos or rephrasing parts that don't need to be changed.
- Does "Easter egg links directly to a foreign-language article are rude" refer to number five of H:FOREIGNLINK? It does seem slightly deceptive, but the web browsers with the biggest market share have auto-translate built in. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, though I don't think I'd ever looked at that help page. I hadn't thought about in-browser translation; I always get asked whether I want to see a web page in translation, I suppose others have it set to automatic. I'd still call it an Easter egg. (I guess we show red links to logged-out readers out of openness, and to suggest they come aboard to help remedy such deficiencies; in the early years there will have been a higher number of red links in the average page, and they may have been one impetus to becoming an editor.) The article looks good, and I see it's been marked reviewed by the NPP people. Congrats again! Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:Red link says it emphatically and repeatedly at the start; they're a suggestion to fellow Wikipedians (who may not know an article is needed without one). They also assist with article creation; it's a lot easier to start a new article by clicking on a red link than by starting it in user space and then moving it, or by getting to the blank page at the right title by some other method. As you probably saw, I like to note in my edit summary when I've added a red link, to draw attention to it and to provide another place to click '-) When I was new, I thought they indicated a deleted page and removed a few for that reason, but admins are expected to remove them when they delete an article. And sometimes an article was deleted after a long-ago AfD and the topic has since become notable, or more clearly so; or it was an expired PROD and nobody noticed at the time to contest it. If someone later red links the same title or one of its redirects, clicking on the red link brings up the deletion edit summary and a link to the discussion, so the situation can be assessed (and for the PROD, it may be worth going to deletion review). On the other hand, there are some ridiculous red links out there, including trivial brand names and instances where a newbie used [[ where they should have used ''. So I do zap them sometimes. (And it's not a good idea to have them in places like the Notable people sections of settlement articles, and they're verboten in See also sections.) The one big downside to red links is that they are disturbing and frustrating for readers. Often this can be offset a bit by using an interlanguage link. (There's even a parameter for piped links.) This gives the reader a red link followed by one or more little official language abbrevs. leading to foreign-language Wikipedia coverage of the topic; some will be able to take advantage of those. On the other hand, Easter egg links directly to a foreign-language article are rude (as well as concealing from fellow editors here that the topic doesn't actually have an article here). I'm not about to edit the Red link page, but it shouldn't advise that as a valid alternative. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Follow-up question. Why are red links merited? Is there a policy (to encourage article creation)? They always look out of place to me. Hypocrite --> TheSpacebook (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)