User talk:MB: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi there, I came from my place to say "Thank You" for your works on the particular article named Ramakrishna Mission Shikshanamandira, which is created by me tonight. Keep helping me in this platform if possible and stay safe my friend :)

Hi MB. I am working on the correct

@

Fram to have more time since he started the first AFD. In the meantime, let's improve both articles (by deleting info and expanding, as appropriate). MB 23:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Makes sense. On the other side of an AfD..I see why people are frustrated with

WP:REFBOMBing especially when the refs are not even about the subject. Other editors do not click beyond a few links if at all, and then they cosign the ivote. Lightburst (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I eliminated the erroneous in Cones Lake. We shall see if it starts friction. Thanks for the chat and the tag team. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it seems like it is taking forever the get the Bass Lake DYK up. zzzzz. Anyway I am curious to see how many views it may get, the hook is not incredibly hooky. But those flickr images are sensational. Thanks much for your help getting the information right! Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MB. You reversed my information in the article Siling Lake (Tibet), where i put the altitude 4.530 m in the 'Infobox' section. The same "4.530 m" altitude is already written in the article in the 'Overview' section. I wonder how can '4.530 m' be correct in the 'Overview' section' but not in the 'Infobox' section? It is the same information, just other location in the article. Thank you. Zemljevidec (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zemljevidec, I did not notice that it already was in the body of the article. I have restored it to the infobox. MB 04:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Exorcise Tape, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Atsme 💬 📧 17:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was an auto message - anyway, remember, we don't mark articles in Deletion discussions as reviewed. We need more eyes on it for one thing, and there is an overwhelming number of keeps that I don't consider justified, and neither does Kudz. Atsme 💬 📧 17:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme, have you forgot the consensus is that we DO mark AFD articles as reviewed to remove them from the queue. Their fate will be decided by the consensus reached at the discussion. We don't mark CSD or PRODs as reviewed because those tags could be declined, but not AFDs. MB 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by this formally closed consensus, and several prevailing opinions like this one.] Atsme 💬 📧 11:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @

WP:NPP, Unlike CSDs and PRODs, you can mark AfDed pages as 'reviewed' after tagging them, as their fate will be decided via discussion and they can't fall through the cracks if tags are removed (a bot will restore them so long as the AfD discussion is open). That logic makes sense to me and is also in the flowchart. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand what you're saying, but we need to make it formal to overrule the discussion I linked to, otherwise we will be subjected to on-the-fly changes without consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 12:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme, @Novem Linguae, the first discussion you linked was closed as Consensus is to move forward with the proposal and the proposal was Should we stop marking articles tagged with CSD and PROD as 'reviewed' now that we can filter them in the NewPagesFeed? That is current practice to prevent CSDs and PRODs from "falling through the cracks" if contested. As NL said, this does not apply to AFD and is already documented. I recall I have mentioned this several times in the past year on the NPP TP to clarify for some people who where not sure of the policy and that did not lead to any new debate. The second comment you linked is from the same proposal you already linked, and does not include the later reply that reviewing an article at AFD does NOT index it for search engines which was Rosguill's primary concern. There has also been discussions at VP in the past year that concluded if an article survived AFD, even by no consensus, it shouldn't even be tagged for notabilty. I'm not sure I personally agree with that one, but the main point is that the AFD outcome is sufficient "processing" of the article. Why do you think we need to make it more "formal" than it is now (explicitly stated at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol). MB 14:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when an AfD is closed as keep or no consensus based only on the closer's opinion and a single iVote, possibly 2; one of whom may be the article creator. That is not much different from a rejected PROD or CSD. I don't see how that could be considered a healthy consensus. NPP reviewers should at least get a second look at it. Per that same discussion: We now have a new filter at the NewPagesFeed that can filter out pages 'nominated for deletion' (CSD, PROD, and AfD, and soon to contain RfD as well), so we have a better solution for those that like to use the 'next' button; they can just uncheck 'nominated for deletion' and their system will just skip those articles in the queue. If an AfD ends in no consensus because there wasn't enough participation, any NPP reviewer should feel free to bring it up at WT:NPP for input, and at least give us a chance to either

WP:FIXIT or renom with increased participation. It doesn't hurt anything for reviewers to participate in AfDs, quite the opposite is true. I wouldn't sweat the backlogs because having better quality articles in main space is far more important than rushing through reviews because of a backlog. If we are doing the job correctly, we should not be rushing through our reviews or making snap decisions that may lead to mistakes like this, and this. Atsme 💬 📧 15:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's move this to [Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Marking_AFDs_as_reviewed see link below ] –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(a full month later:) i, as a Talk page stalker i guess, found this interesting and went to follow the link. The discussion is at slightly different name: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Marking AFDd pages as reviewed. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My webmaster is looking in to the problem why I am not receiving some mails sent through the Wiki mail system. Could you please send me a test mail using it so we can check my server. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done. MB 14:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB. You recently corrected PA and other such usages to omit the two-letter abbreviation, rending it Pennsylvania in the chapter list table in the article, Phi Psi (professional).

I understand this meets general guidance in the WP:MOS. However, for clarity and consistency, I'd like to allow for these. Project participants (Fraternity and Sorority Project) have been rather methodical in recent years, moving chapter lists and infoboxes to adopt consistent formats, this being one of them across several thousand pages. (That's an example of consensus.) We've found that the two-letter abbreviations, with underlying WLs, get the job done, importantly allow for a narrower table, and are thus more readable. In the infoboxes, usage is split: where used in the address fields (not founding school/city), they follow the standard US Postal abbreviations which casual researchers are looking for when addressing an envelope. Founding cities and states are spelled out. It's highly unlikely that non-US readers would seek a postal address here, and run into confusion. Now, in body text we would assuredly spell out the full name of the state. Yours was a good faith, but single change, impacting a category of articles that use this format widely. Wikipedia allows for deviation from the MOS where it improves clarity. I hope you see this as reasonable. Assuming so, I reverted your change. Jax MN (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MB, I'm curious about this edit. I didn't know there was a certain level of significance (or criteria) necessary for including whether or not you someone served in the military in the infobox. Can you point me to any documentation on that? I've always thought you are or are not a military person, and there isn't necessarily a gray area like this. Similar to whether or not someone is in a category for the topic. Thank you, --Engineerchange (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE explains the infobox is for a summary of "key facts". If someone's military service was noteworthy and made up a significant part of the article, it would belong in the infobox. But if it was relatively minor, it wouldn't. This has been discussed before, but it would take some searching to find it. MB 04:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@MB:, that makes sense. Thanks for the info! --Engineerchange (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added an info box to Wolfgang Hoffmann BUT it doesn't quite fit the bill. Is there such a thing as a LIST of Infobox templates from which to choose an appropriate format? Infobox seems to go nowhere in this case!

Am also on the track of further information; have temporarily entered some of it into the Infobox, but awaiting cite-able references to confirm and expand. Thank you! All the Best! Shir-El too 10:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Category:People and person infobox templates is a good place to look. It looks like the article currently has {{infobox architect}}, which is probably a good choice. {{Infobox person}} is also almost always appropriate for a person. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Jonesey95 Thank you! Will follow up the category reference and save the link for future reference. Cheers!!! Shir-El too 09:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shir-El too, Yes, {{infobox architect}} seems to be the best fit for this person. I moved some of the info around and added a bit. Would need to know more about the additional information you may add. If a person was also significant in a second career, it is possible to use a second infobox tailored to that and usually there is a way to combine them. MB 15:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Will revert if/when. Sub rosa he apparently remarried and they opened a photography shop in Geneva. I hope they were successful; I always felt he got a raw deal and deserved better. All the Best!!! Shir-El too 09:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above confirmed! Have added two new sections. However, Infobox will not accept second wife or shows child only (per final line). Also unable to name reference [9] so as to reuse for same final line. Beyond my ken. Cheers! Shir-El too 20:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shir-El too, I don't know what trouble you were having adding to the infobox. I added the second wife and child myself. I also made the last ref named and added it to the earlier quote. As best I can tell, this is what you meant. MB 21:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much Appreciated, MB! I'm not a 'techi' and work mostly with copy-paste, so the niceties of syntax - especially the new (to me) purple commands - elude me. These last edits round it out. I'll continue to trawl, but thanks to you it's 'done'. Many, Many Thanks! Cheers! Shir-El too 08:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MB, You left a message on my talk page saying you unreviewed

@

WP:NOTNEWS event that does not warrant a separate article. It would be a candidate for deletion on those grounds if there wasn't an article on the building which makes a suitable merge. MB 14:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia pages but was wondering what portions of the last update I did to Calabogie Motorsports Park constitute an advert and what changes you'd suggest to still provide the information people would be looking for? It is a Motorsports facility and people come to Wikipedia to find out about the track and what is offered there and so listing what facilities and services are available seems very appropriate.

Thank you. TheColKlink (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE. MB 22:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, I'm a frequent editor of the Triton Jr-Sr High School wikipedia page, I've recently had trouble fixing image syntax and I've seen you've corrected my mistake, If you could show me how to fix that I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Sy

You should be able to look at my edit to see what I did. Basically, in infoboxes the filename is used as the parameter, e.g. image=filename.ext, not image=[[File:filename.ext|thumb]] MB 14:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

talk) 14:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

You have several. They'll keep until you can read them. Take care, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the booklet was copied EXACTLY as it appears on the Internet Archive; the italics are mine, but it is ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Why change it? Thank you and All the Best!!! Shir-El too 20:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:ALLCAPS. See the first bullet there. MB 20:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Point taken. Thank you again! Cheers! Shir-El too 20:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many info boxes list the demonym for a place, but when I tried to add the same statement equivalent to that found in the Honolulu article, it did not display the demonym and you reverted the change. Why can't a demonym go into the info box for Maui?

@

infobox island}}, you could start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox islands and if others supported it, the parameter could be added to the template. MB 00:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page watcher) @MB and @UWashPrincipalCataloger, {{Infobox islands}} does have a |demonym= parameter:

• demonym = the name the people of the island are called that is based on location

– Archer1234 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UWashPrincipalCataloger, I was mistaken. As @Archer1234 pointed out, the parameter is there, it is just called |demonym= instead of |population_demonym= as it is in {{infobox settlement}}. And I see that another editor has already updated Maui, so Mauian is now displayed as you intended. MB 02:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's great! Thanks for filling me in!

talk) 17:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I expect you've seen the various threads on the VP. While I fully defend the use of the draft space, I now have conclusive proof that not only are reviewers not customising the 'Move to draft' default message, but some reviewers are not using the script and not leaving a message at all. Good faith creators are being left to discover for themselves that their articles have been moved and to find out why. This is just one example of why two-stage reviewing might be a good idea. Admittedly the WMF is at fault for not making it clear where to find the instructions for creating articles, but two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps this will interest NL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Help:NPR

and then see the tags on top for what needs to be done.

Putting the Move to Draft functionality into Page Curation would be my #1 pick if we get the WMF support we are seeking. MB 14:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too. I'll mail you the changes I would make to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you changed my picture Mawbawinranaghat (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mawbawinranaghat Because it was taken from a website and is therefore a copyright violation. It has been nominated for deletion at Commons. MB 04:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Mawbawinranaghat (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not report you for edit warring on this article, because I thought it was more important to get the SPA editor under control, but you have definitely have been over the line with your reversions. Please note that there is an open discussion on the talk page on what the "government" field should say, and there is not consensus there at this time. Please contribute to the discussion and make what arguments you wish to make in favor of your preferred version, but do not continue to revert to your version. I'm going to blank the government field until a consensus determines what it should say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken, I know nothing about the content of this article or the subject. I am just trying to fix the errors:

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox country with unknown parameter "legislator1"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox country with unknown parameter "legislator2"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox country with unknown parameter "year_legislator2"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox country with unknown parameter "year_legislator1"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox country with unknown parameter "title_legislator"

I was reverting back to a stable version with no errors, not trying to change anything else. The version you just put back re-introduced these errors. MB 01:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are errors in the infobox, please change them individually rather than reverting back to a previous version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the errant parameters, so I think the problem you were working on is fixed. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you actually got there before me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken things got confusing when you made this edit - instead of just reverting the SPA, you made some changes and left the infobox errors that they caused. Anyway, all fixed now. MB 02:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that I gummed things up. Glad all is right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... on my part: the 'V' in

Done. You should have been able to do that yourself with the MOVE tab. MB 15:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have - if I had had a clue what you are referring to. Years ago I tried to make such a correction and was told to ask an admin. Thank you once again... and I'll try to stay out of your hair for a while at least, by way of appreciation. ALL THE BEST!!! Shir-El too 23:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AUTOCONFIRMED which allows you to move most pages. Maybe you were a brand new user the other time you needed to do that. You should see a MOVE button, nearby the edit button. MB 00:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

HA! Found it just now... it's a tab under the "More" button, to the right of the "Add this page to your watchlist" star!!! {At least that's how it shows up on my page right now.} Here's hoping I don't need it soon. ('Thank you joke': "What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care!!" It translates into other languages, too :) Much Appreciated! Shir-El too 09:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn’t know about it and wasn’t sure if red links could be in hatnotes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB, I saw your change at Lombardy, which I'm currently copy-editing, here. I'm puzzled by your edit summary "fix convert error" – how are the {{convert}} templates I and others added errors? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Baffle gab1978, one of them had a typo: {{convert|2000|kg|lb|abbr=o}} (abbr=o instead of abbr=on). That was an error that had to be fixed, and I just simplified all of them. MB 01:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah I see, thanks for explaining. Probably my error then; I did add a lot of convert tags there. All's good. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there a reason you changed the redirect target for

@

Sweeps. I don't remember any more. Thanks for fixing. MB 14:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah I see. No worries then, just wanted to check to make sure I wasn't missing something. Bennv123 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

Hi MB, got your note. As that is a personal script of an editor that has edited as recently as last month, most of the int-admins would be reluctant to make any substantive changes to it. Minor syntax errors, or if it was causing some technical breaking problem aside. It sounds like you want something in between. So what now? Option 1, as you mentioned, is to fork to somewhere that will be more maintained. Option 2, start a section on the script talk, include exactly what you want changed (in a "Change X to Y" / "Remove lines n" / "Insert X before Y" type of request) notify the owner (talk page and email), wait a reasonable time (maybe 2 weeks), then open an edit request and an int-admin may do it for you. You could also ask in the same request if the author will allow the int-admins to process any "community feature requests" for their script in the future and document that on the page (refer to that in future edit-requests). Hope that helps? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPP with the appropriate protections, or does it have to be in someone's user space? (I realize it is called a User Script). F.Y.I, there are ~740/430 (active) users of this script. MB 03:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@MB sounds like you are thinking of converting this to a "community script" - which is a good idea I think. It could be forked to MediaWiki:Gadget-SCRIPTNAME.js. It wouldn't be a "gadget" (yet) but by being a js page in mediawiki space, anyone could still import it - and most any reasonable edit requests would be handled. The "documentation" for it could live in Wikipedia:XXX space and be maintained by anyone. If it became much more popular (1000+ users) converting it to an actual gadget could be done as well, then people would activate it using the preferences menu. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even creation of pages in the MediaWiki space is limited to interface admins. I guess I'll fork the script over to my userspace, modify it, test the crap out of it, and then ask you to move it to MediaWiki space. That works? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, we're talking about User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js right? I'd prefer to keep it in the userspace of an active dev (MPGuy2824 since he sounds willing to work on it) rather than moving it to MediaWiki:Gadget space, which should make updating it easier. However, this forking idea means that the current users of the script will not get the updates. MB, feel free to chat with us about your full idea. Are you hoping to implement a "pick your message" feature? Catch up on bug reports and feature requests listed on the talk page? Something else? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae that does sort of set up the same problem for the future. As an int-admin, I can say we're rather responsive to updates of things like this. Whomever wants to update it should keep a "personal" copy that they can update to test and develop anything, and just ask for that revision to be copied to mediawiki when ready. @MPGuy2824 yes, just drop an edit request at it's new home if you want to go that route (e.g. Mediawiki talk:Gadget-MoveToDraft.js). Keep in mind, any of this "moving" it to a new page will require the existing users to update their own personal script pages. I'm not strictly opposed to moving this all the way to an actual Gadget (initially in the 'Testing and development sub section) - provided there are some maintainers that know what they are doing and want to take it on. In that case, the "conversion" for users would be (a)remove from their common.js, (b) turn on in preferences. The update process would be the same as if it were in mediawiki space and not a gadget (someone files an edit request). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a gadget, it can also be only offered to people using certain skins, or with certain permissions. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tested it and its looking good. Looks even better than my wireframe. Just needs a couple of format tweaks. There's just one thing I hope no one has forgotten: this script will only be available to NPPers and admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple news articles now about "crowdfunding weapons" (currently a redlink) being a thing now, a significant factor in the Russia-Ukraine war, although the idea was posed only as a joke at first. I have not reviewed the coverage for this, but I wonder if the discussion is ignorant of similar precedents in pre-internet history, i.e. the not-well-known Schools at War program. Which amounted to funding provided by a mutually-supporting crowd of ppl who could/would know about one another's contributions, and which purchased a specific airplane or other weapon that would be labelled/identified as funded by a specific school's campaign. And it was a kind of thing done widely, elsewhere, I think, like where citizens of some European city would contribute to fund a ship that would take the city's name. And perhaps (i don't know of specific weapons-focused examples though) the ladies of a southern or northern city during the ACW would get together and provide funds for an actual cannon or mortar or other weapon, or provide for purchase of the entire outfitting of rifles for a regiment (maybe distinct from their other, more in-kind-like or more care-package-like donations of sewing bandages, making uniforms, sending baked goods(?) etc.). FV103 Spartan article now mentions crowdfunding of that weapon, citing today's Guardian article that is one of those I saw. Interested? Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Field artillery in the American Civil War, a howitzer would cost about $500. Searching on "fundraising during the American Revolution" and "during the American Civil War" each yields multiple good hits, e.g. "Economic Support of Women During the American Revolution" covers ladies' comprehensive fundraising drives in Philadelphia, Trenton. During the Civil War fundraising fairs united the Union, about "sanitary fairs" and "fair fever". World War I wikipedia article: "On both sides there was large scale fundraising for soldiers' welfare, their dependents and for those injured", and there were 983 separate funds in New Zealand alone. There is academic and news coverage of this kind of thing. I dunno if an article could/should be focused on weapon-specific fundraising, or if that should first be a section in a broader war-time fundraising (currently a redlink) article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no category covering war-time fundraising. In

British National Society for Aid to the Sick and Wounded in War which in Wikipedia is a redirect to British Red Cross, which has brief interesting history including mention of training dogs to find wounded soldiers in no-mans-land. Obviously, or IMHO, relief work during a war that is aiding wounded soldiers and aiding widows back home is rather directly supportive of a given nation's war effort. And fundraising for purchase of a ship of war or other weapon seems different, but both are part of major topic of war-time fundraising, seemingly not covered in Wikipedia. Going back further, a given Viking ship was "funded" or directly built by a given settlement on a fjord somewhere. Organize by section for each war, I would think would be more interesting than organize by nation. Stopping now, gotta run, but I'm interested, anyhow. And thanks for stepping in on Charles Bolsius House! cheers, --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Doncram, I'll keep this in mind, along with Tapestry brick and Beezer Brothers (identical twin architects, already linked from seven articles, I think mostly in Altoona, PA and then they moved to Seattle). I'm just very busy right now with NPP and haven't written an article in months. When I get some time, I'll probably do Beezer first - that sounds like the most fun, (don't beat me to it :)

What about Young's Park (Overland Park, Kansas)? Did you get my ping about you requesting that be deleted? Since there is no place to redirect it and it's already been Prod-ed, it has to go to AFD unless you ask for it to be deleted. MB 04:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you may have tagged this for deletion and it appears to be an almost immediate a recreation. I'll let you decide what to do with it. We need to think of what can be done in the software to improve the processing of issues like these. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had it on my watchlist, so I would have followed up in the morning if necessary. I found it was a duplicate of declined Draft:Newport, and I tagged it for G10 as an experiment - not sure if that applies when the duplicate is a draft (admin discretion?). The recreation was moved to draft by someone else, so now there are two drafts, which is what I was trying to avoid. It was recreated a third time and then G11'd. A typical case of someone ignoring being told their article doesn't qualify. Yes, we should talk about this. MB 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]