Jump to content

User talk:Oronsay/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 20

Wikidata weekly summary #451

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Graph of Reply tool and full-page wikitext edit completion rates
Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

  • The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
  • It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

  • As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
  • There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[1]
  • The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[2] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
  • A large A/B test will start soon.[3] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

  • New EBSCO collections now available
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
  • Library Card input requested
  • Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #452

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikidata weekly summary #453

Wikidata weekly summary #454

This Month in GLAM: January 2021





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hi Oronsay, I was planning to rate this as B when I'd finished tweaking and linking, as I've used the non-trivial material in the independent sources as fully as I felt possible without plagiarisation -- is there anything in particular you think it still needs? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Sorry, I'm can be a little cautious in my ratings. I think that, if you add an infobox it will lift the article overall, and then you can safely upgrade to B. Oronsay (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there -- I'm quite cautious too, but I've recently started being a bit more generous as I've seen others add B class to things I'd give start to. I rarely if ever add infoboxes to scientists -- I think they misdirect attention towards things that aren't really important. My worry with this one is that most of the sources are written by Denis Garrett, who may not have been unbiased on the topic of his mentor, but there don't seem to be many other detailed sources available and the name certainly doesn't make it easy to find anything! It could probably do with a sentence in the summary about his research and I'd like to add another research paper, except that all the sources only highlight that one and the others don't seem as highly cited. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I don't think B rating is conditional on infobox presence, so please do as you think best. I was quite pleased that I found the correct William Brown to link with on Wikidata.--Oronsay (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #455

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harold Edward Winterbottom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Observer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)