User talk:PamD: Difference between revisions

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.

17:08 Tuesday 18 November 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

Template:EngvarB has been nominated for deprecation . You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Hello Pam,

This is JP the subject of the page you helped with. I have posted on my own talk page as the subject of the page. I am alerted to this issue and informed to create an account and request edits. From my POV my page is under pressure without acknowledgment of facts and sources, this reflects negatively on me and credibility. They now want to delete this page. I would appreciate any time you have if you can fix this efficiently.

Thank you.

Joanna Iamjoannapickering (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamjoannapickering Let’s just wait for the deletion discussion to run its course. PamD 09:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A/b: Auto/Biography Studies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: One click after another
Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit “Kantara” crowd the tubes.

No idea why you did this. It’s a clear case of misspelling. She was born Batista de Carvalho and this year legally added Wapichana to her name [1] (notice the source incorrectly uses a diacritic on her proper name following Portuguese orthographic conventions, but I think the move request sufficiently shows we should use no diacritic on it). She never went by Wapixana nor was it an official surname of hers. Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yacàwotçã Because so many of the sources use this spelling, and a reader may well find that spelling, which it appears she used until recently, and needs to have confirmation that they have reached the article on the person. PamD 16:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s precisely why redirects exist (and I wonder whether someone would seriously think there are two different people named Joenia Wapixana and a Joenia Wapichana). And she hasn’t “used it until recently”, unless proven categorically, because misspellings exist, and they don’t make it reality. The UN isn’t immune to typos. It should be removed, and if you’re truly so eager to use it in the article, it should be at most a footnote, something like: “Some sources spell it Wapixana, but her social media accounts, the Chamber of Deputies official website, etc., all use Wapichana.” Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yacàwotçã There are multiple sources with the “x” spelling, but the lead could be improved .. but no time right now. Will have another look later. PamD 17:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354

Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.

Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made
is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each
biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.

Progress (“moving the needle”):

Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if
you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.

21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)

Other ways to participate:

—Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome PamD! I’m glad that you are joining the November 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British barrelled name has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. U-Mos (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Passione (play) 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/Passione (play) 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.

Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of months ago at UKGEO, you kindly contributed to the discussion that I opened about the horrible List of churches in Milton Keynes, where the consensus seemed (to me at least), WP:TNT. So I have started again and will shut that one down.

If you can, would you have a look at User:JMF/sandbox3, please, before I put it live. No need to look at the individual lines, what I need to get right is the lead. Does it read ok? Could it be improved? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF I wonder if it would be better not to split the table? If sorting on anything other than civil parish is useful, it would be frustrating to have to sort and check six oe so different tables. And wikipedia can cope with big tables. I don’t think the instructions about sorting are needed, I don’t see them elsewhere.

On the lead, it might be better not to mention marriages, but stop the first sentence short and then as second sentence : “The criterion is … or is an Anglican church (these are excluded from the register…)” Sorry, can’t quote exactly, on phone and husband is using our computer.

Slightly confused as your two endnotes suggest that a building might be a registered POW but not registered for weddings (even if in practice this is rare or never happens), so the criterion is perhaps unclear?

Might have another look tomorrow, on computer, but I have a busy morning. PamD 23:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, I’m grateful that you are willing to do it at all. I’ve given it the tweaks you suggested – I was never sure of them, which was one reason to ask. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF Had a look at it tonight. Obviously a lot of work – and a comprehensive listing resulting: well done. I suggest that the table needs a couple of footnotes/endnotes, to explain (a) that the “Denomination” is worded as they have described themselves, and (b) what the “Worship number” is.

Have you thought about fixing the sort order so that the “The” churches file without the “The”? There are various sorting templates, such as {{sort}} where {{sort|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints}} would do the trick. Might be nice to standardise the sorting of the various St, St., SS, too?

Once the table is sorted on anything, most of the linkages are lost from sight, so I wonder if it’s better to link the civil parishes and districts at every occurrence, not just the first? As in today’s featured list Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton_Album of the Year, where Daddy Yankee is linked on both occurrences (if in doubt I often look for a recent Featured Article etc, to see what style is acceptable there). And maybe the districts are worth linking too?

Some of your civil parish names are links to disambiguation pages! I use a “preference” which colours links to dab pages in orange, so I can see Bradwell, Broughton, Calverton, Olney, Ravenstone, Weston Underwood. I also found links to a couple more churches: Church of St Mary, Wavendon, St Giles’s Church, Tattenhoe, All Saints Church, Loughton which are listed but not linked.

I hope this is helpful. Happy Editing!

(I’ve now fallen into the rabbit hole of sorting out a redirect for the grade I church of Ickford, having seen the village as a whole listed in Category:Grade I listed churches in Buckinghamshire, where I didn’t notice any MK placenames though some may be there? I found Grade II* listed buildings in the City of Milton Keynes, but nothing Grade I.) Ah, interestingly I see there are 30 Grade I listed buildings in MK (from the NHLE list), a lot of them churches, but no list article for them in Wikipedia although there’s the much longer (ie harder work to produce) list for II*. Strange, but that’s editors for you. No sign of Grade I listed buildings in the City of Milton Keynes having been created and deleted. Odd. PamD 21:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found Category:Churches in Milton Keynes – not checked whether they’re all linked. PamD 21:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is hugely helpful (and saved my blushes if I had put it live with disambig links). I hadn’t noticed the category, so I’ll check that too.

The “denomination” and “worship number” come from the source spreadsheet (I doubt if any called themselves “CHRISTIANS NOT OTHERWISE DESIGNATED”, which I just changed to “Christian”). I will change the horrible “worship number” to “registration number”.

I began with the assumption of making the list sortable by denomination but so many churches are now “ecumenical” multi-denominational that it is hopeless without a great deal more work than I am willing to give it. “Left as an exercise for the reader”, as my old maths textbooks used to say.

Annoying that I never noticed that missing Grade I list, because in the background I’ve been working through the parishes adding the Listed buildings (for example Olney, Buckinghamshire#Listed buildings and structures) so I could have been building it as I went along. Or indeed just copied the NHLE list and back-filled. I’ll wrap up this Places of Worship first and get back to it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Places of worship in the City of Milton Keynes is now live. Thank you for your help. Next, the list of Grade I buildings and structures… —𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grade I listed buildings in the City of Milton Keynes

Done How anybody started with the II* is beyond me. Talk about a labour of love! never again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Complete sanity check failure. All we needed was a #Redirect|Grade I listed buildings in Buckinghamshire#Milton Keynes . Sigh. Any suggestions for what we do now? (WP:CFORK applies). —𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Women for Refugee Women 2020, blue background.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —B-bot (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]