User talk:ClarityKTMpls/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:ClarityKTMpls. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for creating The Way to a Man's Heart: The Settlement Cookbook. It appears to be most widely and even officially known as The Settlement Cook Book (e.g. the title page on editions dating back to 1901.[[1], [2], [3] [4]) with "The Way to a Man's Heart" being a subtitle or trademark, and not present in all editions. See also the list of editions on WorldCat. Thus, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SUBTITLE I think it should be moved to The Settlement Cook Book. What do you think? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Animalparty:Yes, I completely agree! There was a redirect page that already had the name The Settlement Cookbook and I read through materials but couldn't figure out how to resolve that.. since copying the content from my sandbox and pasting it to that existing page was not appropriate. I was hoping somebody would come along just as you have, to make that suggestion. However you can make that change, you have my full support! Thanks very much! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Great, I'll request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Articles can generally be moved by most users, but it's complicated when the target name is a redirect to other articles. If you encounter a situation like this in the future, you can request an uncontroversial technical move. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Reading the different instructions, I got the message that I should try and do what I could, and also seemed like it was saying a redirect getting replaced by an actual page was a simple thing.. so I thought I just wasn't getting it. Thanks much!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Great, I'll request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Articles can generally be moved by most users, but it's complicated when the target name is a redirect to other articles. If you encounter a situation like this in the future, you can request an uncontroversial technical move. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Aloha ~
I love what I wandered into here: can you direct me to the best way to add my name to the list & how to begin contributing as a writer/editor and Permaculturist, very much interested in Women in Green expansion.
Mahalo, thank you, Claire Anderson Graham ~ 808.344.1228 NatureClan.net ClaireAndersonGraham (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @claireandersongraham Here is that project page. Thanks for taking part! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- ClarityKTMpls, did you mean to link something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, darn it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Green Thanks! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. So women in green is not what I guessed here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Beginning~_would_love_clarity_on_how_to_contribute/edit/write_for.... Live and learn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, you should turn Women in Green into a GA ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- So much to do! If only enough hours in the day. Sigh. Ha ha.. :) ClarityKTMpls (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, darn it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Green Thanks! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- ClarityKTMpls, did you mean to link something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- @claireandersongraham Here is that project page. Thanks for taking part! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! It was really weird to come across this article that you just wrote, because I was just thinking about trying to write an article about Ruth M. Arthur! Would you want to work together to get one written about her? I haven't been horridly successful about finding out anything about her beyond that she was a prolific writer. I'll start the article as a subpage of my userpage so it won't get hit by the deletionists, at least right away :D -Yupik (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Yupik Yes, that sounds great! I was actually going to do a little bit on that tomorrow even. I found a couple of starting points. What is the best way to go forward? ClarityKTMpls (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Candle in Her Room, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Yorker and New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red
Hi there, ClarityKTMpls, and welcome to Women in Red. As you are interested in women writers and their works, you should be a useful member. If you intend to write or expand more biographies, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome, I'm glad to be part of Women in Red! I reviewed the Ten Rules, very useful. I'm looking forward to being as helpful as I can. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Archive
I think I did the archive process wrong.. help! If someone could revert my renaming of this, I've found the archive instructions and will follow them to do what I was trying to do. I had thought that the software wouldn't let me do something if it were incorrect, and that the action was to move the existing content to an archive page, leaving the actual talk page blank. I've learned! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted it! Whew.. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Four to Score (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Trenton and White Plains
- Ruth M. Arthur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Appleton
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! I keep forgetting that just because the resulting link shows blue, it doesn't mean it's landed on the actual Wikipedia page. I'll be more diligent in the future!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, 
Enwebb, 
Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
.svg){kind=small}
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 
L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Opinions
To be very clear, when you write an article about a work of fiction, and then quote an opinion about it, you must say where the opinion came from. Not just cite it to a source, but actually state whose opinion it is.
For instance, in your article on "The Autumn Ghosts", you said "Another time slip novel like her earlier Requiem for a Princess, The Autumn People shows the magnetism of the past."
This is wrong. You could say "The Desert Sun compared it to her earlier Requiem for a Princess, saying that it 'shows the magnetism of the past'".
"The portrayals of Rodger and Jocelyn are without nuance, but the storyline typing the past to the present is excellent, and Romilly's reaction in the present works well. The amount of detail in Part I vs. Part II is off balance however, and prevents the full measure of suspense from unfolding." Whose opinions are these? Etc, etc.
Please fix these errors. Thanks. DS (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, I have edited that section accordingly. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 at Women in Red
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
May 2020 at Women in Red
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
- Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews- Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
- Lee Vilenski with 869 points,
Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, 
SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 
MX with 515.
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 at Women in Red
June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169
Online events:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, thank you for creating On the Wasteland. I have done a quick copy edit to make the use of narrative present consistent and change a couple of American spellings as the subject is closely connected to the UK (MOS:ENGVAR). When creating an article it is advisable to check that the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, in this case WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, as you can't make a non-notable subject notable. I think the article does not yet show enough in depth coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG: Library thing is crowdsourced and Charlotte’s Library is a blog so are probably not WP:RELIABLE. I would recommend adding more references such as:
- Watson, Greer (1997), "The Seductive Doom in Young-Adult Fantasy", in Morrison, Michael A. (ed.), Trajectories of the Fantastic: Selected Essays from the Fourteenth International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, Praeger, pp. 106–108, ISBN 9780313296468
{{citation}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help).
TSventon (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that suggestion, TSventon! I reviewed the link provided, and I agree that makes a great addition to the article. I'm thinking to go ahead and add that reference, as you suggest. Please advise if there are any other considerations/steps I may be missing. Thanks again very much! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I have had another look and edited the plot summary so it makes sense without referring to the list of characters: could you check my edit as I haven't read the book? I would also add the Kirkus review, https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/ruth-m-arthur-2/on-the-wasteland/, which is more critical. (Help:Your first article recommends having "at least three high-quality sources that a) have substantial discussion of the subject (not just a mention) and b) are written and published independently of the subject".) TSventon (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for bringing up the Kirkus review! I was wanting to check in with someone about that. But first, you mentioned not reading the book yet - are you planning to read it soon? I think it would be great to chat further after you've read the book, if possible. Also I was wondering, do you do a lot with novels/ Fiction/ YA fiction/ spooky fiction etc? Just would be helpful to be able to place where you're coming from regarding your activity on this page.
Regarding the Kirkus review, I have a couple items. One is it feels like it's written by a guy - do you have that impression? Also that the reviewer is not a young teenage women (the target audience of the book), and didn't like the book, might not like young women's fiction at all, might not be a fan of the fantasy/gothic romance genre at all. Wondering a) if you agree; and b) if any of that - to the extent that you agree - makes the review less of a candidate to be included in the article about this book? I think this would be an interesting topic for the book set in general, just never have enough time to do all I'd like to do on here.
All that aside, my other concerns start with how dated and specific the criticisms are. Written in 1975, the reviewer writes that the 'props' are gratuitous. I just feel like that isn't necessarily a universal response. I feel like that person's individual reaction might be grounded in that time period (as well as other possible details about them, listed above). I remember 1975 pretty well, and I was a huge fan of this genre then - 'Candle in her Room' which I read around then was huge in my life - books, as well as movies and tv shoes. There were multiple tv shows at the time in this genre - 'Tales from the Darkside', 'Circle of Fear', 'Kolchak', 'Night Gallery' etc.. etc.. it was everywhere. Then it pretty much all went away, and at this point I feel like the context within which this review was written no longer exists. I feel like the atmospheric details are no longer one-among-many, and in this book in particular they kind of anchor the whole thing.
The reviewer also dates the review in mentioning the number of heroines who have similar experiences these days.. not sure if they mean in real life or in fiction.. neither is true now, and I'm not aware of what all fiction they're comparing it to in 1975. Do you think I'd need to research that further, if I added in that part?
The author they compare 'On the Wasteland' to, 'Seton' -- do you think that is Anya Seton? That's what my search came up with. Not sure if that would need to be explained? Also the reviewer seems to be saying Seton's work is much less literate - but there is no reference on Anya's page to her being illiterate, seems to have been a relatively successful writer.
I don't really understand the first sentence of the review - that the tone is inappropriate for a thirteen-year-old because it's too languid, and too sophisticated. The excitement and exhilaration Betony feels about the ship, and her level of upset at various points to me are the opposite of languid. And I don't get at all the term 'sophisticated' being applied to this book; which is set in a rural area; is about a young girl who was basically homeless at first, and since then lives in an orphanage; and involves visits through time to a Vikings settlement 1000 years ago. Sophisticated to me deals with wealth, glittery cities, etc... Maybe you can help me with that part after you've read the book.
In addition, the words 'lassitude' and 'soupcon' are both extremely obscure, and not especially applicable.
So when I thought about adding any part of this in some way to the reception section, I had a hard time with which part to include, how to work it in, whether to include dictionary entries for the obtuse wording, a link to 'Seton' (once I had verified the right one), etc.. etc.. I guess I would put it in the 'External Links' section if anything, but honestly I wasn't 'overexcited' about the review enough to do that. Your feedback is welcome! I hope you get to read 'On the Wasteland' soon, as well as her other books - especially 'Candle'!! Thanks. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I arrived on the page fairly randomly, with almost no previous involvement in fiction articles. Coincidentally, I have been editing articles on the Anglo-Saxons recently. I had just discovered Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click and clicked to edit your article. You thanked me and I then read the article and did some copy editing. As you are a fairly new editor and have written several articles I thought it was worth raising the issue of notability as if an article doesn't have three in depth sources, there is a danger that it may get deleted, which is a waste of your time. As for me, I am British and male. I used to enjoy fantasy novels such as Susan Cooper's at school but I don't remember this author. I hope that helps place my activity.
I don't think I will be able to read the novel at the moment so I will say what I can about the Kirkus Review (KR). The points made by the reviewer are similar to those made by Charlotte's Library (CL). KR says "Betony tells her story with a languid sophistication" while CB says that the way Betony "tell[s] us a story that she already lived through, with lots of flashbacks" leading to a "lack of immediacy and lack of closeness". On "props", KR says "The mixture seems half-hearted rather than dreamlike" and CL says "The plot hits all the right notes" and she "should have loved this book to pieces" but merely enjoyed it.
The Anya Seton reference and the "number of heroines who have similar experiences these days" are about Smouldering Fires (novel) which was reviewed in the same issue (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/anya-seton/smouldering-fires/). The comparison was relevant in the context of the printed magazine but I think irrelevant otherwise. "Smouldering Fires" was Seton's last novel and the quality of the writing could have been affected by her age. The article only has one reference, but may be notable because of the novel is part of a major author's body of work. The popularity (and gender) of time travel in 1970's fiction would be relevant to the article if sourced to a wider study rather than a humorous remark.
I think the tone of the review is largely a product of the medium and audience. KR produced hundreds of small format reviews per issue, presumably aimed at librarians and other professional book buyers, so critical reviews were useful to the audience. Obscure words like soupçon (hopefully with the correct accent) may be humorous or showing off. CL writes about the kind of books she likes, "generally won't review books [that] don't work for me" and can write as much as she likes online.
I don't think there is anything particularly quotable in the KR review, but as the content is largely confirmed by CL's, I think it is worth a brief mention or external link. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate has a section for reception "description of the work's initial reception and legacy based on the work of literary critics and commentators over the years" so early reviews are relevant. I think Wikipedia's reliance on reliable sources means most of the potential raw material up to the twentieth century was produced by men and almost none by children or young adults. How do you think editors should be dealing with that? TSventon (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Well, that's great that you arrived on the page that way, I just wish you could read 'On the Wasteland' and other books of Arthur's, since her books are often about a significant turning point in British history. She was of Scottish background of course, so an outsider to an extent, but a UK citizen certainly, and clearly very proud of her British heritage and of British history. Actually, being of Irish ancestry myself, I've been a bit at odds with my own bias' and anchors etc.. in working on her books. It's been an interesting journey for me in that regard.
Anyway so OtW is of course about the period when the Vikings shifted from being 'enemies' to 'neighbors' within England itself - that's the transition that the Betony's ancestors experienced during the period she slips in to, which Betony becomes aware of. Arthur did a lot of historical research for her books, and if there had been a better reception, she probably would have expanded the work and would have been much richer with even more historical detail. I feel like she was ahead of the whole 'historical fiction' genre, right? Not sure exactly when that started. But that genre is how so many people *actually* learn about history, vs. the classroom. And I think that's really what Arthur wanted to write about - the timeslip/ghost etc.. conventions that she used were simply a means to that end. The Kirkus review for example doesn't mention that historical transition that she was writing about at all.
Oh, thanks for the spelling updates also - I can't capture that, because my publications of her books were printed in the US and don't have those spellings.
I have a response underway about your other points too, but I will have to leave that for next time. Right now especially, between all the time dealing with the Covid situation, and all the intensity of the George Floyd murder and social change that that is bringing about, I've been inactive lately on Wikipedia. Actually OtW is relevant about that also.. Kirkus mentions the black man in terms of being suspected of starting the fire, which is itself terribly small-minded and reflexive. Arthur was calling out that presumption of white people to believe the black person did the crime, and Kirkus mentions that only in the review. Not only did he not start the fire, he remained close friends with Yetty and Betony for the rest of the book. From the Kirkus review is seems like Orlando/Orrie is only in the book when suspected of starting the fire, or that that is his main identity in it. When in reality, that is the ignorant assumption of some (not Yetty herself), and quickly discarded. Orrie of course is the one to save Betony's life later on! Arthur's handling of white people's racism towards young black men is true now as it was then. Regards, ClarityKTMpls (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, take your time in responding, Wikipedia shouldn't be a full time job, even when there isn't Covid to contend with. Anyway, I have now joined Open Library and read OTW. I enjoyed it as 1970s children's fiction: the illustrations, wise old local people, the family at the manor, grammar school, a heroine who wants an education and a career but enjoys learning about household tasks. However Betony's role seemed a bit passive, including as Estrith: she doesn't find a vital clue or even play quidditch and she has to be saved by Orrie. I am curious why I hadn't heard of Arthur previously: possibly I was offered boys' books (and boys' and girls' books) but not girls' books.
I am always (over)cautious about learning about history from historical fiction. The Vikings are particularly difficult to research due to the lack of written records of the time. Arthur's Vikings are perhaps a reaction to earlier negative depictions, but also seem to be inspired by European settler narratives: they are self sufficient, there is no mention of rape, pillage or slavery and they and the locals decide to be friends. In the Wikipedia section on Viking attacks and eventual settlement in the Kingdom of East Anglia, the Vikings seem a lot more aggressive than that. I presume that Irish historians used to be negative about the Vikings, but perhaps they are now rehabilitated as part of Ireland's multicultural history.
On spelling, it is normal to use your own version, but I think it is incorrect to put "United States" in the infobox for British (or Irish) authors.
I have reread the treatment of Orrie and the crime and there is a remarkable lack of prejudice. Betony suspects Orrie and his friends because she had seen them near the boat-house and the police oddly seem to interview all the children at the children's home and wait for Orrie's "gang" to talk to them. (I may have missed something because every now and then a page of the book will refuse to load.) I believe that Arthur was innovative as black characters were rare in 1970s British children's fiction. My view of the Kirkus review is that it does a reasonable job of briefly describing and criticising the book, but it can't and doesn't cover every aspect in depth. TSventon (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
- The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
- Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.
Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 
MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September Women in Red edithons
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;- Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
October editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
- Overall winner
- 1st - $500
- 2nd - $200
- 3rd - $100
- Diversity winner - $100
- Gender-gap fillers - $100
- Language Winners - up to $100*
We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
@ClarityKTMpls: Since I'm in the process of preparing the CNC article for a run at FAC, I have some concerns about your recent edit (as quoted below):
- "As of November, 1943, the University of Minnesota School of Nursing program was honored nationally for enrolling the most nurses of any institution in the country.[69] [70]"
- In November 1943, only the first enrollment period numbers were known -> since there were two additional enrollment periods, which does your edit refer to?
- The citations (69 & 70) link to Wikipedia articles, and not to the specific newspaper sources that are supposed to support the edit?
- The comma after November is incorrect, because 1943 is essential to the meaning of the sentence?
- The CNC program had 1,125 participating nursing schools, so how does this one detail about one school benefit the article as a whole?
I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pendright: I'm updating some of the activities related to the UMN School of Nursing, and since the CNC article didn't include the content I was updating, I wanted to explore whether it was a good fit to include it there. It sounds like you disagree, you can certainly revert. I was thinking it would be interesting to have info about the specific places around the country that individually provided the nurses, etc.. I know that info may not be in the sources you have access to, but the folks around the country (like us) would have that info, and could supply it. But like I said, feel free to delete my addition if you feel that that is best for the article. In response to your points:
- Yes, this edit referred to the numbers signed up for that first of 3 enrollment periods, as it was as of November 1943. The UMN had high numbers for all 3 enrollment periods, but the congratulations from the Surgeon General was in reference to that immediate result only.
- I don't understand what you're saying about # 69 and # 70, it looks to me like the full newspaper article information is shown there in your citations list?
- Sure, we can delete that comma (if the sentence as a whole stays in, even).
- I think it would be interesting to have info about the other participating schools as well, certainly the top ones. Perhaps it could be a 'See also' items instead though, or something.
I recognize your seniority on Wikipedia and in regard to this topic, and your authority regarding this page. I will of course respect your decision. Anything else helpful, please let me know. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Let ‘s be clear, we each share the same privileges on Wikipedia, nothing more, and nothing less. If I have a leg-up, it’s because I have been queried on the exact items I have queried you about. Had I chosen to undo your edit, we would not be having this discussion. Your edit was made in good faith, as were my comments to you.
- I concur that "certainly the top ones" should and "See also" seems a likely place. Can you give this phrase a bit of context for me?
- Regarding citations 69 & 70 - see {{cite news}}
I'm sure we can find some common ground, where both of our interests can be served for the good of the article. Pendright (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, and am on the same page of course. As far as 'top ones' I was talking about the nursing schools within the U.S. that provided the largest numbers of nurses to the Corps. I don't know the other ones unfortunately, but I would like to! I'm just aware that the U of M expanded all possible capacities during the war, and in terms of nursing, turned out the most possible number during each period, while many of its faculty and staff were themselves away from the school supporting the war effort in other ways. It's a positive reality that is inspiring, and I'm sure there are others like it! The U of M also expanded one of its buildings with those funds that were made available, as did other schools in the area. And those expanded facilities in turn helped continue to supply the nurses needed in the post-war period as well. In fact, the war was a period of change for the whole healthcare industry.. and the Bolton act - while created to fill a short-term need - ended up helping the US transition to that more expanded healthcare industry to a huge extent. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pendright: I added some pages to your 'See Also' category.. their content isn't as complete as I would like in regard to the Cadet Nurse Corps, but they are some of the related areas.. so much of the coverage of nursing is incomplete of course! The -Hospital_ page for instance, I didn't even include that.. it's missing so much. At the UofM the first 'hospitals' were two old houses. A decade later, a building was built. Two decades later, WWII happened, and the hospital growth was enormous - both because of all those wounded during the war, and because employer-funded health insurance made it possible for the American people to get better care, and the Cadet Nurse Corps was crucial in supplying those nurses.. but all that is missing.
I think Case Western Reserve (Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing) and Yale School of Nursing were two other primary nursing schools active in supplying the Corps, I don't know if you'd like sentences about them similar to the one about UMN in the text? The UMN SON page now has a timeline, which includes mention of involvement in the CNC, but the other two schools don't.. so it might not be clear to the reader why they were listed in the 'See Also' section without some content in the text of the article.
- @ClarityKTMpls: I did not get your ping- no g on your ping? I'll get back to you on the above comments. Pendright (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I wondered also if you were open to having an 'External Links' section? Here are some possibilities for that:
- https://www.womenshistory.org/articles/making-difference-us-cadet-nurse-corps
- https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/creating-cadet-nurse-corps-world-war-ii
- https://www.wsna.org/news/2019/the-push-to-recognize-the-u-s-cadet-nurse-corps-as-veterans
- @ClarityKTMpls: I’ve added the External links section and included your suggested items under it. Now, you will need to reformat the items to cite web; the same as you would do in the bibliography section. I hope you have checked them for redundant information, which they often contain.Pendright (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pendright: Oh, I see.. I had copied what you had on your original message to me, as this was my first time with this particular piece of wikipedia code! Thank you for updating me on that!
I filled in those external links, thanks much for adding that. There likely will be overlap/redundant information, but I feel like they provide *additional* information/context that may be of interest to the reader. That's what I love about wikipedia, starting off on one subject, and learning all about it and sometimes about related topics, or what's going on regarding that historical subject in the current day, etc. Thanks very much! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ClarityKTMpls: You are welcome! As a matter of course the items in the External links section are required to be in alphabetical order. According to Wikipedia, the average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. Which leads me to believe that quality triumphs quantity. Regards! Pendright (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
SOME LOOSE ENDS
Articles:
- An article, by its nature, is limited in size, and need not (or can not) include every detail. Spin-off articles are common on Wikipedia. Your plans seem too ambitious for one article. You might consider creating a new article about the nursing schools that participated in the CNC program.
See also:
- Overkill!
- This is relevant- but consider this: of the 1,300 nursing school in the U.S., only 1,125 participated in 1943-1948. Alaska did not participate because it did not yet have a nursing school. Hawaii could not participate because it was in a war zone. Question: is this list representative of that period?
- Change to History of nursing in the United States
- Overkill!
Citations 69 & 70:
- 69 - "Today's Birthday: Katharine Jane Densford". News-Pilot. San Pedro, California. Associated Press. 7 December 1949. p. 16.
- 70 - "'U' Cadet Nurse Corps Honored". Star Tribune. 28 November 1943. p. 19.
- You used the "cite news" template, you need to use the "cite web" template.
- Links to Wikipedia articles are not authoritative sources. Get a thrd party opinion, if you like! Regards! Pendright (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pendright: Your changes are made. Thanks. ClarityKTMpls (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)