User talk:Cremastra

This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let them know if they did something wrong.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage HD.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Congratulations! - My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice picture – the trees in the background are great. Cremastra _talk 20:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of |extinct= has no impact on the functioning of a taxonomy template. I routinely remove it for extant taxa. I guess what happened it that I saved Template:Taxonomy/Crinocheta before I created the parent taxonomy template. Usually if do that, I go back and make a null edit to the child template once I've created the parent, which fixes things. I guess I failed to do that in this case, but I'm really surprised the problem persisted for so long. The system usually finds the once missing parent template on it's own, and my impression was that it does so fairly quickly (like, less than an hour).

On the other end of things, if a chain of taxonomy templates is created in quick succession a child template may fail to pick up a parent template that was just created. The time frame on that being a possible problem is very short; maybe a couple seconds at most. But if the child is saved within that time frame, it can take awhile for the problem to resolve if nobody makes a subsequent edit (but again, "awhile" in that scenario should be the same as if the child was saved before the parent; I'd expect it to work out on it's own within an hour).

How did you notice the problem? Were you checking an error tracking category for taxonomy templates, or do you notice a woodlouse article with a broken taxobox? Plantdrew (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought that maybe the extinct parameter was mandatory, since the documentation implied it should only be left blank. I noticed several woodlouse articles with broken taxoboxes. Cremastra _talk 12:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chtonobdella limbata you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chtonobdella limbata for comments about the article, and Talk:Chtonobdella limbata/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oniscus asellus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a Wikipedia page for someone that should have one but doesn't? --Bulldogparkerfan (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bulldogparkerfan: this is a common question for new editors, but I might need to some more information to help you through the process.

The short answer: go here to write a draft and then submit it for review. If you don't read the long answer, your draft will nearly certainly be declined.

The long answer:

1. First, to help you I'm going to need some more information. Who is this person, and why "should" they have an article?

2. Wikipedia only covers topics which are "notable" — not notable in the sense of famous, but in a very specific Wikipedia sense: that the topic is well-covered or important enough to merit coverage. If we didn't have these inclusion guidelines, we'd be overrun with articles about, say, peoples' pet cats, which would be nice but not very fitting for an encyclopedia.

• How do you determine if something is notable? If you're writing about a person, you'll want to check out this guideline. On that same page, there are more specific guidelines for different sorts of people. For example, national politicians, people with significant roles in multiple notable films, etc., are all presumed to be notable topics.
• If you tell me who you want to write about, I'm happy to help you assess their notability.

3. The second part of your comment makes me wonder why this person needs to have an article. If you just think we have a gap in our coverage, that's great! That's how most new articles get written. I actually first joined Wikipedia because I thought there were gaps in our coverage of centipedes.

But if you think this person needs an article because you've been paid to promote them, or are a fan and want to promote them on Wikipedia, you need to make very sure you're writing from a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean you can't write the article though.

I don't think this is the case, but if you are getting paid to write an article, or have a conflict of interest with the subject, this will get a lot more complicated.

I get that this is a lot; please don't rush through this process. Writing a first article is difficult. If you can tell me who the person is and why you want them to have an article, that'll be a good first step.

I'll also leave a standard set of links on your talk page to some of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, to help find your way around the encyclopedia. I'd suggest you make some small improvements to articles you're interested in to get used to the editing process. You should have a homepage that you can configure to give you editing suggestions.

If you have any more questions (small or large), don't hesitate to ask me or post a message at the Teahouse, a forum where new editors can get help.

Cheers, Cremastra _talk 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yo wsp --Brotheresnousers (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can I help you with anything specific? Cremastra _talk 11:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cremastra, I am a new editor to Wikipedia and have been working on the article "Cuyahoga River." I noticed some of the information I added was removed a few weeks ago and wanted to know if you could help me improve it. I would have reached out sooner, but I initially believed that I had simply forgotten to publish my additions (and also why I initially added it back). If there is any advice you could share or sources you could direct me too, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. EEL1917 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EEL1917 Sorry, this is going to be an unhelpful reply, because I don't believe I removed your edits. I reverted a copyright violation added just before by a different user, but your edits should still be standing, although the diffs are now deleted due to the page at that time containing a copyright violation. I assume you're talking about your edits on 18 April. Looking at the revision history, NicoEroles (the copyright violator) added 611 and then 762 bytes to the page; you then added several thousand bytes, and I then removed 762 and 611 bytes, corresponding to NicoEroles' plagiarism. However, I'm not an administrator and can't look at deleted revisions, so I can't see what you added to confirm it's still in the article.

In any case, I wouldn't be the editor to ask for advice on that article as I don't know much about the subject area. If it was an article about an animal, plant, or populated place, I'd probably have useful advice, but you know far more on this subject than I do. Good luck, and apologies I couldn't be more useful. Cremastra _talk 19:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes much more sense. Thank you for your oversight. EEL1917 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]