User talk:Sciencefish

I noticed that you have intentionally removed some archive URLs on Miss Charm 2025. Why? Having them there means that if the links ever become dead links in future they can more easily be fixed, since it's obvious that it's archived. Seercat3160 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Having now read WP:ARCHIVEEARLY, I have reverted. Sciencefish (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Sciencefish. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 19 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a joyful Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy 2026 ahead. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Just want to flag that you can do a WT:WHITELIST request for old Kickstarter links you find in sources instead of replacing them with citation needed. Kickstarter can be acceptable as a WP:PRIMARY source for specific details like total amount raised or start/end dates. I haven't had any issues getting these types of links approved if the campaign is over & the product has become notable enough to have its own article (ex: request I did for Powered by the Apocalypse). Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for point this out, I didn't realise this was possible. Sciencefish (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sciencefish, I hope you are doing well.

I noticed the recent revert and wanted to seek clarification. The information I added to the infobox was sourced, and some of the removed details (such as university) are already supported in the article body.

Additionally, regarding details such as eye colour and height, would you advise including such information to any specific section in the article?

I appreciate your guidance and would like to ensure the article aligns fully with policy.

Thanks. Zuck28 (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I could see no text with citation that supported those occupations in the article body. You can put the information and citation anywhere appropriate except the lead, as long as you; Take extra care to cite high-quality sources when adding or changing information per the BLP page. Note that eye and hair colour are rarely notable in BLP articles. Sciencefish (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it.

Understood regarding the occupations; I will ensure any additions are clearly supported by high-quality sources in the article body first.

As for physical details, I understand that eye and hair colour are rarely notable in BLPs. My intention was only to follow the standard format commonly used in pageant infoboxes where such details are sometimes included when reliably sourced. If they are considered undue here, I am happy to leave them out.

• Regarding height (which I do have a reliable source for), would you recommend placing the citation in the article body and then reflecting it in the infobox, or is citing directly within the infobox acceptable?

Zuck28 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, an infobox uses only referenced info from the article body per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Sciencefish (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I do have reliable sources for her height and eye colour, and her university is already properly cited in the article body. Based on MOS:INFOBOXREF and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, would you prefer that I first include height (with citation) in the article body and then reflect it in the infobox, or is adding the cited information directly to the infobox acceptable in this case? Zuck28 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Always add to the body where possible. Sciencefish (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The university is already covered in the "Early life" section with a citation, so that part is fine.

For height and eye colour, I am not entirely sure where they would fit naturally in the body, as these details are typically included only in the infobox. Would it be acceptable to include them in the infobox with proper citations, even if they’re not discussed separately in the prose? Zuck28 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)