User talk:YoungForever

This is YoungForever's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Sourcing in article Monstera gigas

hello! you added a one source box to the article i made, i added another source (IPNI), where there was only POWO. does this mean that the box goes? also, the article is pretty small at 2 lines, just a statement of where it is on the tree of life, and its native range, why is another source needed, since POWO is a good source? thanks! Bright (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just some student on the web: Please see WP:ONESOURCE which states: a subject for which only one source can be cited is unlikely to merit a standalone article. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

when to use title cards as apose to promotional poster

Ginny & Georgia uses a title card but could just use the promotional poster, so when a title card exits is it peferred over the promotional poster because simpile text has no copyright? or is there some other reason? Anthony2106 (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TVIMAGE, use an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. Title cards are preferred over promotional posters when title cards exist because they are usually not season specific whereas promo posters are usually season specific, especially when there are multiple seasons. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you Anthony2106 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

Hi Youngforevver Thank you for your review of this article. You did so, even though it had been nominated for deletion. Would you care to comment on this AFD proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Central_Illinois%27_On-Line_Broadcast_Museum I look forward to your comments. BuffaloBob (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol \| September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for quickly reviewing the page Technological Transition in Cartography I created! Always great to have pages looked at within a few hours. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AntWiki reliability

Hello, I have noticed that you have replaced the AntWiki source on Camponotus acutirostris and put in the edit summary that it is unreliable. However, antwiki.org states that its contributors all have to be verified by an administrator and demonstrate an expert knowledge about ants. Unlike Wikipedia, unregistered users cannot edit any pages at all. Thank you and I hope that you will recognize AntWiki as a reliable source! 2003 LN 6 05:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It states Contributors are not necessarily ant biologists but do have more than just an enthusiastic interest in ants. FYI, contributors are not ant biologists. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page also states that Contributors can add text to discussion pages. They are like WP's talk pages. They can give suggestions but cannot edit actual articles. The page states that editors are ant experts that can edit existing content, create new pages, and upload files. 2003 LN 6 05:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point here. AntWiki is a user-based website. Please see WP:UGC. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, only ant experts can contribute to the information on the page. Therefore, if this is considered a user-generated website, every source will be as the most reliable sources are made by experts. 2003 LN 6 05:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, AntWiki is a user-based website and user-based websites are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. You could have use scientific journals or other non-user based websites such as a government website the have that kind of information or university textbooks. YoungForever^(talk) 06:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this would be difficult to settle with a small sample size, I would take this matter to WT:RSP. 2003 LN 6 06:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]