User talk:PamD

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page. If you want me to reply elsewhere, tell me why.

00:58 Thursday 20 February 2025 - - - - WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

Please click "New section" or "Add" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).

If you leave a message here, I will reply here, to make discussions easier to read. If you really want me to reply elsewhere, tell me a very good reason why I should do so.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.

Thanks. PamD

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome PamD! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)15:39, 2 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Nominating for deletion

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Leeds Country Way retain its Good Article status. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Thank you. I'm not sure I've now got the energy to work on Architecture of Leeds, but perhaps some talk page watcher might have a look at it? PamD 12:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2025

Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331 Online events: New: Black women | Alphabet run C & D Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements from other communities: Wiki Loves Ramadan begins on 25 February - a great opportunity to focus on women from Islamic history Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed ones on Creative Commons search Suggestion: Consider helping to promote women under In the news and On this day on Wikipedia's main page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Rudman

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing the Rudman page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudman . I have reviewed all references, including links and page numbers, and have personally double-checked their reliability multiple times. I do not believe there should be a separate article on this topic. However, as I suggested edits, some individuals stubbornly removed all information without providing proper suggestions. You can read the full conversation here under exclusivity: User talk:Bkonrad

Could you please review it again and independently edit the original article and see if my edits should be reverted? That would be much appreciated. Gondishapur.uni (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gondishapur.uni I note that your changes have been reverted, leaving a simple name-holder list, while you work on your article as Draft:Rudman.

References to books need page numbers. Please learn how to cite sources in Wikipedia using inline references, not simple numbered footnotes. In a dynamic entity like a Wikipedia article, another editor might want to add another reference in a week's or a year's time: if the references are sequentially numbered in your style, this would be very difficult to do accurately. Contributing to Wikipedia is very different from writing an academic journal article, because of the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia. See WP:Citing sources. PamD 23:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, it was helpful. I have added inline citations. I hope this is acceptable. Could you please review and approve? Gondishapur.uni (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gondishapur.uni I'll leave this to @Bkonrad: to consider. PamD 09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

• Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians

• News and notes: Let's talk!

• Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon

• In the media: Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk

• Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City

• Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed

• Traffic report: A wild drive

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Society of Authors

I recently used your helpful hints, left more than a year ago, in my effort to update this page. I'm hoping to remove the COI notice and sources notice and would be very grateful to have your approval first. CoalsCollective (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

usurped

Hi PamD, about the changes to The Writers' Prize a couple suggestions:

• |usurped= means the entire website is bad. |unfit= means a single URL in an anotherwise working website is bad. In this case, the entire website is bad. I totally understand in effect they do the same thing, but, if someone wants to search/find only on usurped links, not unfit. It also tells readers something about why it was tagged.
• The |via= is incorrect. Archived websites can't be via. The purpose of via is to help editors track down the original source of a story for verification, and archives are never the original source. A via would be like a news story originally published in one place, then an aggregator like Yahoo! News republishes it elsewhere. You will see reFill do this at large scale, but that's because reFill is broken and nobody has been able to fix it.
• For links in the External links section, below the references section, we are supposed to use regular external link templates (or square links), not CS1|2 templates. The reason has something to do with performance and overhead. Rule of thumb don't use CS1|2 below the references section; this does not always hold true, is a best practice.

-- GreenC 16:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. PamD 16:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC For info, I've just found that citation templates are allowed to be used in Further Reading section, below refs, though, as you say, not in External links. See WP:ELORDER. All very complicated. Always something new to learn about editing! PamD 14:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

One might earn a PhD in Wikipedia arcana. -- GreenC 16:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC And the distinction between "unfit" and "usurped" is useful - I've now added a reminder about url-status to my list of useful info at User:PamD/sandbox#Templates! Thanks. PamD 14:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Great! There is also {{usurped}} and {{unfit}} for wrapping bare/square archive URLs where the underlying source URL is usurped/unfit. The purpose is to prevent bots and humans from later converting it into a citation template and unknowingly re-activating the usurped/unfit URL. -- GreenC 17:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)