User talk:LPascal

"Needs image"

Hi @LPascal: I've been trying to use your Google spreadsheet and it seemed to me that you might usefully use the "needs-image=yes" parameter within the talk page assessments. That is, I wanted to draw your attention to the various templates used on the Talk pages to assess articles. For example in Talk:Anne_Zahalka the template:"{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=Start |listas=Zahalka, Anne |auto=yes|needs-image=yes}}" has been modified by the insertion of "|needs-image=yes" Modifying talk pages in this manner means that various bots (and other wikipedians) will pick up that an image is needed. You will see that I have used your google sheet to add this to the talk pages: Talk:Anne_Zahalka, Talk:Anastasia Klose, Talk:Agatha Gothe-Snape, Talk:Ann Newmarch. It doesn't always show, but that does not prevent the bots from finding and listing these for wikipedians attention. Doing this would allow all wikipedians to help, rather than just those signed up to the wikiclub.

And, of course, as you know, the reason why so many articles fail to have images of the subject or their art, is that most images of artworks do not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia, that images be CC-BY-0 in some form or other. And as for photographs of the subject, the photographer who created the image needs to be 70 years dead, or to have released copyright. MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listing pages in category and its subcategories

I saw your query at User talk:Mitch Ames. Is this tool any use to you? NebY (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article citations count

Hi @LPascal: How goes it? I notice that several of your articles are suffering from WP:CITEKILL. Generally speaking only reference is needed per sentence and there is a fine line between too many references and too few. This article, for example, Peta Sherlock. This has whole blocks of references sometimes six or eight which are overkill. It really needs to be addressed. I also had a look at List of the first women ordained as priests in the Anglican Church of Australia in 1992 which as ref 7 to 26 which is beyond the pale really. I assuming you plan to use these for that structured list which is itself unreferenced, one per entry possibly? scope_creep^Talk 11:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great articles apart from that and well referenced... scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really solid in fact. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @scope_creep^Talk

Thank you for complimenting my articles and for putting these friendly comments on my Talk page to alert me to WP:CITEKILL. I quickly read that policy and will work through it again in detail and see what I can do with the references on my recent articles as well as review Wikipedia:Citing sources again. I thought though that it would be worth giving you the reasons why I reference the way I do. I'm not going to get out of checking those articles against WP, just discussing the issue. I'm also happy for you to explain to me how the placement of the citations for the standalone priest list could be improved.

Firstly, as a volunteer social historian and archivist and a former director of social policy, research and data, I have a deep aversion to making assertions without references. I like to see that every sentence or paragraph in a report or history is backed up by an authoritative source or data. This fits well with WP:CS. I am also aware of whole articles written by others based on only one source or just a newspaper report where the journalist didn't pay much attention to facts. So I am very thorough in my research to make sure I find the information I write about in more than one reliable source.

I am also aware that some of the articles I write are about women working in jobs where their status and role is contested, their notability questioned, and their articles more likely to be challenged, so I need to show that the woman I am writing about has indeed achieved enough or been written about enough to meet notability requirements through reliable sources.

Another issue is that I don't like the stuttering effect of one fact per sentence and so I might combine a few facts into one sentence. For example: Jane was married at x place and then obtained a degree at x university. There are two facts in that sentence, and the verification comes from two different sources, so I put the citations at the end of the sentence rather than after each fact. It's a personal preference not to interrupt the flow of the sentence with citation numbers. However I will look at the policies around inline citations and see if I'm following them.

I already know that lists of publications, works, or exhibitions within an article have to have a citation per bullet point and so I do that. However because I list a person's works in their article it means I have one reference per work so that adds to the reference list. On stand-alone lists, I have looked at the list policies and I find it a bit unclear where I should put the citations, so I looked at a whole lot of other lists of people and found that they did not put the citation after each name as it seems to clutter up the list, so I put all the citations after the introductory paragraphs. In developing the list of first women priests, I used a publicly available list as a starting point but I could see it had flaws which I needed to double check and correct and put into a list format. So I had to use the most authoritative source, a directory of clergy, but which needs to be checked by year so I had to cite more than one directory. The directory sources apply to the whole list but some newspaper article sources only apply to one or two people. Sometimes I also needed to cite a newspaper article because of differences in married/single names over time and to clarify the number of women and in which diocese they were ordained. Some of these things cause debate so I use references to show I'm not making stuff up.

Finally, I know that students especially find the reference lists very useful in their research, even more than articles, so I think it's a gift to future researchers or students to have lots of worthwhile references they can read for themselves. LPascal (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC

Anglican Ink

I noticed your edits to Anglican Church of Australia and have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Anglican.ink. My initial feeling is that while davidould.net is not a reliable source, anglican.ink is (per the frequent citations in books) and so when they republish Ould's articles (if that's what they are doing) it is with editorial oversight. Hence, Anglican Ink references should not be removed per WP:BLPSPS. But I'm happy to wait and see how it plays out at RSN. St Anselm (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm Thanks for alerting me to the to the other thread. I have left my comments there. LPascal (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It looks like the emerging consensus might be trending towards not having AI at all. St Anselm (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, LPascal. Thank you for your work on Susanna Pain. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SunDawn Thank you. Terima kasih. LPascal (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the adding the page for Gloria Shipp; an important part of the living history of Australian Anglicanism and beyond! Klbrain (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just what I needed. LPascal (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Christian women of the early church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodora.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well worth a read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page - it is the guide, and indeed the MOS regarding your intentions... JarrahTree 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have used that method once before to re-title a page by moving it. I just wanted to give notice about the NGA one for politeness sake in case anyone objected.LPascal (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you have, there is always the process of formally suggesting - a not perfect example might be

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1223473048#Requested_move_4_May_2024 - always well worth looking at other moved and reverse engineer to see the format and process in action.JarrahTree 09:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's suffrage in Australia

Hello there,

I have reinstated the 1895 date for South Australia with a reliable source. The confusion is that the Act of parliament was passed in 1894 but didn't gain Royal assent until February 1895. No act of a colonial parliament is valid until it gains Royal assent.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aemilius. I'll have to do some further research on this. In 1994 I lived in Adelaide South Australia and the state celebrated the centenary of women's suffrage. I organised a women MPs seminar and a women in local government exhibition that year. So a bit embarrassing if we celebrated the wrong year. I understand what you are saying about the Act. I'll double check. LPascal (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aemilius Adolphin

So far

https://women-and-politics.collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/suffr1.htm#:~:text=Dame%20Roma%20is%20also%20the,them%20the%20right%20to%20vote.

https://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/government/state/display/113975-centenary-of-women%60s-suffrage-in-south-australia

State Library SA gives 1994 as the year of the right to vote but all above sites acknowledge royal assent not given until 1895 however the centenary was celebrated in 1894. So I suggest we put 1894 with an asterisk or brackets saying assent to the ACT given in 1895, but the centenary was celebrated in 1994. Something like that. What do you think? LPascal (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/en/About-Parliament/Women-in-Politics LPascal (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several suffrage articles where South Australia is quoted, so I think we should have a request for comment on one of the articles and then apply the result uniformly to all articles where the information is relevant. Personally I would prefer the 1895 date (and 1900 for WA) because I am a bit of a legal stickler and the law didn't actually change until 1895. We should then have a note stating that South Australia celebrated the centenary in 1994 because that was 100 years after parliament actually passed the legislation (late in December I think). Other articles affected include: Suffrage in Australia, Timeline of Suffrage for Women and just about every article on Australian history! Let me know what you think. Best we get it right once and for always. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aemilius Adolphin I think we should put the 1895 date throughout all the articles but with every date, include a note about suffrage in SA being celebrated in 1994 and give some official sources like SLSA showing the date is slightly contested. OR use "1894/1895" everywhere with a note. Agree to put a request for comment on one of the talk pages or wherever you put them, but don't wait a long time before making the change. Do you want me to help out with writing the request for comment or making the changes or are you happy to do it? LPascal (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sound sensible. I have already made the change to Women's suffrage in Australia but will add footnotes along the lines you suggested. I should be able to get this done over the next couple of days and then I will let you know so you can review the changes and add comments. I will also run it past another user who has made useful comments on the article here. If all three of us agree on wording it might avoid the need for a Rfc which could take a month. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]