Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of DJ Delete, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: NME citation suggests possible notability. I would take this to other deletion methods. Thank you. BangJan199901:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While an article might shift out of one category and into another, please do not remove all of the pages in a category so it is tagged for speedy deletion, CSD C1. This is called "emptying categories out of process" and is considered disruptive editing, especially if it is done on a large scale to many categories. If you believe that a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please put in a nomination at Categories for Discussion as you can see in the message above this one. This way, other editors can consider the changes you want to make and can arrive at a consensus. This is even more important than other procedures with articles (AFD) or redirects (RFD) because all categories exist in a hierarchy and what affects one category can affect others. For example, if there is a decision to do away with one category that divides individuals by gender, it can affect other, similar categories that also divide individuals by gender.
So, please, before taking on any major recategorization projects, bring them to CFD and post your suggested changes. And if you are interested in Wikipedia's categorization structures, I encourage you to review other editors' proposals at CFD and make your own judgments about whether or not the nominations are an improvement or not. We always need more thoughtful participants involved in deletion discussions. Thank you! LizRead!Talk!18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies and thank you for this helpful note! Would it be correct to assume that past consensus on categories isn't always an indicator for similar categories? (IE: If School X had Y Category eliminated, would School Z have Y category eliminated or would that go through the same process as school X?
Hi there, Wozal, and thanks for adding the Women in Red tag to your user page. It's good to see you intend to help us chip away at the gender gap. If you would like to become a full member of the project, you can join under "New registrations" on this page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up on this, Wozal, and welcome to Women in Red. As you have not yet created any biographies of women, you might find it useful to look through our Essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've made several edits removing college and university rankings from the lede of articles, writing in your edit summary that "General Wikipedia consensus is that this wording should only go in the lead for universities that are ranked in the top 10 by the major publications (see other comparably ranked institutions)." Where is this consensus documented? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ElKevbo, I'm going to self-revert soon unless I can find the original source. Rereading things, I feel that I may have misread things. I first noticed the wording here:
I don't know that there is an explicit, documented consensus on this issue. I would really like for there to be one which is why I'm considering an RfC although as you can see from what I wrote on that advice Talk page I'm leaning toward simply requiring multiple, high quality sources that explicitly support a statement in the lede instead of requiring a specific ranking.
Hello Wozal. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Athgo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is 15 years old. Please use AFD to discuss deletion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt notice. In the past, I've seen articles 10-15 years old get deleted through speedy deletion. By chance, can you provide me with a link to the guidelines saying that articles above a certain age won't get deleted through speedy deletion? If this is a new policy, I'd really like to familiarize myself with the age range to avoid unneccesssary backlog for you and other admins!
I'll admit there is no policy that says that speedy deletion can only apply to recently created pages (excepting WP:R3). In this instance, the article has existed for a long time with basically the same content, with numerous editors having contributed to and reviewed it during that time, including a few names I recognize as people active in anti-spam and deletion, yet nobody has suggested that it should be deleted. Therefore, it seems to me that deletion might be controversial, and it ought to be subject to discussion where the other contributors could give their opinion, i.e. WP:AFD. Speedy deletion is for very obvious cases where nobody could reasonably object, and I don't think that bar is met here, that's all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wozal. I am letting you know that in the category sporting_affiliations, you allowed to enter more than one conference. If you check the Massachusetts Institute of Technology they have six different sporting affiliations. University of Notre Dame has three including football, hockey Big Ten Conference and the main conference of the Atlantic Coast Conference. I would like to add that Washington University in St. Louis is an affiliate member of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin in the major sport of football. I hope you do not revert this edit. You may also check the California State University, Sacramento who has many affiliations including baseball and women's rowing. Please consider that it is allowed to have more than one entry for the sporting affilation(s) category. These entries may be football, hockey, lacrosse or any other sport. Please leave a response on your talk page. Dannyzk (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using your example of MIT, it appears that MIT is a fully-pledged member of all 6 conferences. It also appears that University of Notre Dame is also a fully-pledged member of the conferences listed.
Looking at the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin, it lists 9 affiliate members which it seems to distinguish from its other members. From what I can see, none of these universities had CCIW listed under their affiliations prior to your edit. It's the longstanding tradition of not including affiliated members in this case which leads me to believe this is likely something worth discussion to change. Per WP:ONUS, while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Clicking around, I found the State University of New York Athletic Conference, which has one former member. Its infobox does not include the conference, but it is mentioned in the athletics section. The same seems to hold true for Old Dominion Athletic Conference and I'm sure it holds true for other conferences, especially at the D3 level where Sports tend not to be as dominating of a force as the D1 schools. Given the purpose of the infobox is to summarize information and per Help:Infobox, also aims to avoid trivial information. We have to ask how prevelant something is to include in the infobox. I don't neccessarily disagree that the content shouldn't be included but rather that it seems to be that the infobox seems to traditionally not include affiliate members. However, placement of the infobox can also be seen as WP:UNDUE depending on what's there and we'd have to consider what else this could possibly open up as well as what those finer details might be. For these reasons, I think it's worthwhile for you to start a conversation on this at Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice. Wozal (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?16:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
InJuly 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
Should universities in the CCCU category when they are already in a subcategory of the page? Many colleges are in a category for their college, which is already in the CCCU category. The CCCU category does not appear to be non-diffusing. WP:PARENTCAT. glman (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's the subcategory of the page. To me, it appears like Wikipedia:EPON is being used and that while the article of each university should be placed accordingly, the category (which displays as a subcategory) of the school should not since those additional categories are not relevant to CCCU category.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Curious about your removal of a bunch of categories within Category:Wesleyan Female College (Wilmington). Is this category not meant to be included in those other categories? --Engineerchange (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it reads as Wikipedia:EPON. The school's wikipedia page should be categorized within those categories; the category of that school does not seem to be categorized within those schools. I believe this is done to minimize double categorizing the two as well as well as to avoid giving additional weight to certain schools when in the original category. Wozal (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Hope today finds you well and that you're keeping warm! Apologies in advance for the long message. I just want to make my thought process as transparent as possible as edit summaries are often limiting.
My original edit was based on adding and restoring non-university sources (which in part involved replacing those sources with non-university sources and getting rid of an overly crowded section. I was not targeting any specific people; simply looking at references and ensuring that they were secondary sources when possible since universities articles often have overused primary sources when a secondary source would be better suited for notability. There are times when primary sources are unavoidable for certain facts, but I'm a huge proponent of using secondary sources whenever a valid source exists. The original layout distinguished recent alumni from earlier graduates but made no mention of what those cut-offs were nor what made them distinguishable from other. From my scan of around 50 other pages, no other university's page distinguished between them. As such, this seemed like an easy way to combine those two paragraphs but required additional cutting or else the material in that section would seem undue.
Your original edit mentioned they were a professor emerita but under the faculty section, I imagine that a fair number of 900 faculty there, would likely also qualify for the same title if they were long-term faculty members there. Using Massviews, then seemed to be part of how to better distinguish someone who was notable but that number alone isn't enough.
Per WP:UNIGUIDE, which is often where larger talk consensus for universities happens and seems to be the standard for other institutions,
Noted people – This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.
Which then leads us to if using the company she founded, would we know what her company was? I imagine it does not have the same instant name recognition as those currently listed. While everything has at least 1 source now, I feel like there are still big weaknesses to the page. Part of it lies in the fact that a lot of the information on faculty members don't mention how long they were there for. There are adjunct members as well as visiting professors. At one point, I thought there was a minimum amount of years required to be flagged as a faculty member under Wikipedia's standards, but I can't seem to find that.
I also believe this page could perhaps be more inclusive if there were sections like this one to better show that faculty do have lives outside of academia both before and after.
Would be more than happy to collaborate with you as I think Pat Wolff's charity seems like it does excellent work even if not as known as other charities! Wozal (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I hope you are doing well.
I am so respectful that you have the reviewing rights. I have an article for a Geneticist, Leon Mutesa, and I would appreciate it if you review it for me. Thanks. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]