Cannabis Sativa

đŸ„Ș


Question from Brianbladewilson on American Me (band) (18:10, 13 April 2024)[edit]

Hello, I was editing the “current members” section and something went wrong in the coding/format. I think it’s something small I’m missing. Please help? Thanks --Brianbladewilson (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Brianbladewilson! I've reverted your edit to see what the problem was (make sure if you accidentally break something you revert the edit to not leave it broken), and it seems like all that was missing was two curly brackets }} at the end of the box.
If you look into the code you'll see this table on the side reads "{{Infobox musical artist" at the top. This template specifically is used to give specific info about the artist. All templates are defined by two curly brackets on either side; they'll display anything that is on that page inside of the page you use the template on. By using {{Infobox music artist}}, it will display everything on the Template:Infobox musical artist article (except the instructions). This works for every non mainspace article.
Panini! ‱ đŸ„Ș 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Zozopelli (12:39, 18 April 2024)[edit]

https://coronadoconcert.com/our-beloved-bandstand/

I would like to preserve Coronado, California history... A music teacher sold his car to create an on-going community concert lasting over 50 years.

Don't want to re create the wheel or just the current website... Best way to ingest stories, images, videos.

Thanks in advance... Best zozo --Zozopelli (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Zozopelli! This is an interesting read.
Although it is interesting information, it seems to be too outside of the Wikipedia:Scope of the article about Coronado, California. This article is about the city itself, and details about the history of concert within it are too specific for an article of its size.
Perhaps you can find another more specific article where this information can be used, or even creating an article about the location itself? Panini! ‱ đŸ„Ș 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Beachweak (22:05, 21 April 2024)[edit]

Hello! I'm new to editing Wikipedia. There are various pages on the Aphex Twin discography (such as Joyrex J4 EP & Joyrex J5 EP) that have limited sources. I wanted to add sources from something like Discogs to show the appearance and / or track listings of the EPs are accurate, but I've read Wikipedia disallows Discogs as a source. What should I do? Thank you. --Beachweak (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, @Beachweak! Can you let me know what exact information you are trying to source in these lists? That will help with my answer.
If you are just trying to source the songs on the track lists such as the one on Analogue Bubblebath#Track listing, you technically don't need to. The object of discussion is usually the source itself (such as how we don't source plot sections per WP:PLOTCITE), so this does not need to be verified, per se. Information that needs verification to be true, such as writer credits and release dates, require sources however. Let me know what it is you want to source and I can help you out from there! Panini! ‱ đŸ„Ș 20:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! After I did some more reading on Wikipedia sources and verification and such, I realised the verification was needed for other claims in the article and not the track listing. However, on a semi-related note, would Discogs be able to be cited if I couldn't find information on a topic anywhere else? I'm currently drafting an article on an EP, Draft:London 19.08.2023, and some of the information (mainly the price and stock numbers of the record) can only be found on this Discogs page[1]. I plan to eventually write other articles on related Aphex Twin EPs and it would be helpful to know in case I make a mistake. Thank you! Beachweak (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beachweak, So I'm having trouble finding where exactly it says this right now, but price and stock numbers are not usually mentioned in our articles because they don't serve much encyclopedic value. In some cases where the price itself is of note (such as people widely complaining about the price of something) we include it, but this rule is in place to keep it neutral and free of promotional info (see WP:NOTAD). As such, don't worry about it! Panini! ‱ đŸ„Ș 03:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beachweak, found it (I say I found it but they did, the rule is WP:NOTPRICE. Panini! ‱ đŸ„Ș 02:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Growth News, April 2024[edit]

18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Beachweak (22:40, 25 April 2024)[edit]

Hi there! I've been doing some reviews of the pages Money Money 2020, Trans Am (EP) and Money Money 2020 Part II: We Told Ya So!. In the "chronology" section for each release, it seems to differ slightly; in the first, Trans Am (EP) isn't mentioned anywhere and the page contains a blank "singles" category in the infobox. In the second, Trans Am (EP) is inserted into the chronology. In the third, it's not present in the chronology, but is present in the "singles" section. How do you think the EP should be displayed? I couldn't find any pages on how the chronology section works but I feel like the EP should be mentioned somewhere in their chronology. Thank you! --Beachweak (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Beachweak, sorry for the late reply, but here I am finally.
  1. The blank singles was because it was never technically filled out. The "name" header was to cite the name of the album, and a "single1" parameter needed to be used (see the difference in my edits for clarification). Why it doesn't just assume the name of the album I don't know.
  2. For the chronology I'm not sure why Trans Am (EP) wasn't mentioned but I added it to the chronology. Now I'm not too sure why that is or if there's a specific rule for this one as well, but for all the music works I've done so far I skip over those EPs if there isn't an article for it. If there is, go for it!
Panini! ‱ đŸ„Ș 03:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter[edit]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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 would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) 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) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from UnlockSalmon on User:UnlockSalmon/sandbox (15:35, 29 April 2024)[edit]

How do sent draft for review? --UnlockSalmon (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @UnlockSalmon! After looking at your draft you seem to have submitted it correctly already. Good work!
All there is left to do is wait. Wikipedia has a large backlog of pending articles at any given time, so it is likely to take a while before the article is reviews. In the meantime you can work on other articles, or polish the draft. I would recommend writing a lead section for your article (see here), and translating your article's references into English (see WP:RSUE). Perhaps there is an image of traditional clothing in Thailand that you can find on Wikimedia Commons as well? Panini! ‱ đŸ„Ș 16:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply