User talk:JoeNMLC
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoeNMLC. |
JoeNMLC, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Archives2022 Talk
Happy New Year!
JoeNMLC, Have a great 2022 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2022 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2022}} to user talk pages.
– North America1000 17:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC) p:astro/eventsHi JoeNMLC - I was just checking if you were working on this month's events for the Astronomy portal, and if you still wanted to keep our arrangement of alternating months. If not, that's ok! I was just wondering since I haven't heard from you in a while. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of New York University faculty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Lists of football clubs in de-orphaned articlesHello. I would like to ask you to stop adding List of football clubs in X country to the football player articles. List of football clubs and specific player are undoubtedly related to broader topic of association football, but I struggle to see how they related to each other and what help such links serve for the readers. Please try to update the update pattern you're using. Thank you. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Year articlesHi, please note that the year articles (i.e. 1983) are for people who have notability across multiple countries. There are "Year in Country" articles (i.e. 1983 in France) for people wo are only notable in one country (or a very few). Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
Excellent article on a technical subject. Well synthesized from the various peer-reviewed articles. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) |
- @Oaktree b - What is this for? Please clarify. I'm confused... JoeNMLC (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
PRODs
Hello, JoeNMLC,
I was just looking over articles that have been PROD'd, like Andriy Savenets, and noticed that you didn't post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. It also helps editors if, in your edit summry when you tag a page as a PROD, if you mention that you are "Proposing an article for deletion" or "PROD". If an article gets de-PROD'd, it's then easy to tell by looking at the page history that an article has been PROD'd before.
These practices are made easier if you use
- Hi @Liz, Firstly, for edit summary, I've been using ce, add Proposed deletion. Do you recommend using "Proposing an article for deletion" or "PROD" instead? Is it really that helpful? If Yes, I changeover to those exact words.
- After looking at the Twinkle/doc, here are my 2-cents worth. Twinkle evaluation...
- PROD (proposed deletion)
- Instead, I have my own tracking at JoeNMLC/Article PROD and AfD. It helps me keep my sanity & is fairly new-just put together in May, 2023.
- Majority of (orphan) articles that I nominate for deletion are very old-created many years ago, so user-notification is a BWOT in my opinion. Or when a defunct/inactive user is notified, does that trigger a message to people (if any) who have that person on their Watchlist?
- PROD (proposed deletion)
- XfD (deletion discussions)
- Not sure if I would ever need to use these functions. Still learning about del. discussions & have only participated in a few so far.
- XfD (deletion discussions)
- Tag function
- Using a notepad-plain text editor, I built my own tagging list; I like & am comfortable with it's speed and accuracy. Monthly, I do a search/replace of the date on each line.
- Tag function
- For me, Twinkle has a great many features that may be helpful for people, just not for me. I would be afraid to use Twinkle lest I make mistrake(s)! Sorry for the length of this response. Thank you for taking the time to communicate. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced "sources"
Please engage on article talk at
CS1 error on Terminating deposit
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Terminating deposit, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a
Relevant references
Hi, hope you are doing well. I rollbacked two of your edits, one on El Dorado (Japanese band) and one on Mabel Martin Wyrick because the sources you added did not reference the actual topic of either article. For example, the reference on the El Dorado was about visual kei culture but, going through the article, there was no mention of the band as the actual topic. Similarly, Mabel Martin Wyrick's reference was the US Census for a place in Kentucky where some of her writing was based - it has nothing do with her as an author. I am going to continue looking for these kinds of issues and trying to find a better reference where possible or rolling them back where necessary.
Please be sure that the sources you are using as references are meeting the project's guidelines of being relevant, reliable, and verifiable. I understand your desire to get through the categories and backlogs but adding references to any topic mentioned in an article, rather than the article's topic itself, does not accomplish what the URA is all about. I'm happy to discuss this further but I really think we need to focus on quality, not speed. Kazamzam (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore, please be sure to update the date on the clean-up tags. For example, on the Mabel Martin Wyrick 'one source' tag, you left the date as September 2007 from the original unreferenced tag. This is a new tag so the date should be September 2023. Kazamzam (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam - Thanks for the above feedback. I will definitely update those tag dates to be current. I just wish we had a massive group of editors (100 or more) to chop away at the backlog; I do understand why it's so large. Over at WP:Orphan I've reduced my involvement there (frustrated) because there is an automated bot tagging articles, plus Page curation, plus AWB that are actively tagging orphan articles vs. fixing. Lately I've found Query tool to be helpful, and have done a few Move to draft, PROD, AfD articles, so I do like the variety of things to help with. Sorry for the length of this response. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- The lack of editors is frustrating - which is why we (or at least me) are very happy to have you. I appreciate you updating those tags. I know there is a lot that needs to be either rollbacked/reverted and I have started chipping away at it to find relevant sources but it is quite a tall order. If you could start working on that as well, I would appreciate it. I think we can still keep the progress that's been made in clearing out the oldest categories even if the progress is at a slower pace now. I think your point about using PROD and AfD is a good one - some articles don't meet the criteria and should be removed accordingly. I'm happy to strategize this with you further.
- Sorry to hear about the frustrating changes at WP:Orphan. I actually just deorphaned an article; will try to give it more attention as it seems like a lot of these can be fixed relatively easily. Thanks, Kazamzam (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam - Thanks for the above feedback. I will definitely update those tag dates to be current. I just wish we had a massive group of editors (100 or more) to chop away at the backlog; I do understand why it's so large. Over at WP:Orphan I've reduced my involvement there (frustrated) because there is an automated bot tagging articles, plus Page curation, plus AWB that are actively tagging orphan articles vs. fixing. Lately I've found Query tool to be helpful, and have done a few Move to draft, PROD, AfD articles, so I do like the variety of things to help with. Sorry for the length of this response. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Reference relevance reminder
Hi again. I'm reaching out because I have noticed there are still issues with you referencing relevant sources for articles. For example, on the 2006 US Open – Men's doubles, you cited a 2012 press release from Emirates Airlines that did not mention anything from 2006 or doubles. This provides no meaningful information about the topic and does not back up the claims of the article in any way. Adding relevant, reliable, and verifiable references is the entire purpose of WP:URA; citations that do not meet these criteria are both unhelpful for the reader, who can't rely on the information in the article, and detrimental to the project, because other editors need to fix them and this, at least for me, has been quite time-consuming when I could be cleaning up other articles. Please let me know if you would like any help finding high-quality references - I am more than happy to help. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam, I agree 100-percent, and now understand that just because an article's reference exists does not mean it is "on point" so to speak. In fact, last night I added another section to my Article cleanup page here. And placed Melpakkam article, and added a Talk discussion for the article. Yes, finding high-quality references is an issue. I've searched many places in Wikipedia & not able to find any kind of list that is helpful. So does that mean to use the PROD - AfD process for those old/short articles? Another example (many of them) are for "Villages in India" articles - difficult to find anything. A few times that I prod the articles, they were declined but not fixed. Thanks for taking the time to explain how referencing is not just a process of moving one cite into a second article. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam, Thought to share that I did find a few links to India sources.
- The Encyclopaedia Britannica website (here), although a short-list of cities does have a "Cite" button that makes a nice ref. to copy-paste to Wikipedia. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- The small geography stubs can be very challenging. They typically cannot be deleted unless there's proof that the topic actually does not exist because almost all human habitations have notability under the project's notability guidelines for geographic features, hence why taking them to AfD is usually fruitless. Some things I have tried are making sure the spelling is correct, looking through old census records via Google Books (the census2011in website is not reliable, neither are a few of the most common search results because they don't meet reliability criteria; this will usually be flagged by the edit filter and generate an alert), trying to find something in another language, a news article, or a government source that can be added as an external link and then we can use the Inline template so at least there is something. It's very tricky! Those are definitely not the articles I would start with because they can be very thorny. The articles that I find easiest to cite are species or genus articles (you can find these using the biology filter) because they will usually have a few results in either Google Scholar or Google Books.
- I definitely recommend reading through the topic-specific notability guidelines before sending an article to AfD to spare yourself the frustration. You can also check out the perennial sources list to determine if a source is likely to be useful. Kazamzam (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Two things: Although census2011.co.in is a janky-ass mirror site, the data is an exact copy of the 2011 Census of India. I used to use both in conjunction when I was doing more de-orphaning focused on Indian villages. I never found an instance where the data from census2011.co.in differed from the data on the official census website. I argue that it is suitable for purpose in the absence of anything better, since the official site no longer works, and the 2021 census has been delayed until at least 2024. I have had people argue that it is possible that I just never happened to come across a discrepancy, which, fine, there are thousands of records and I submit that the possibility exists, but what would be the point of replicating the entire census just to fuck around with the population numbers on a couple of random villages? It makes no sense. It would be so much work to do that for so little benefit, when the obvious purpose of the site is to passively make money by sticking ads on a ripped copy of the census.
- Second thing is that GEOLAND actually only applies to legally-recognized places, which are usually villages and upward. Things like neighborhoods, vaguely-defined "populated places", and homesteads don't qualify, and with a properly-articulated deletion rationale, are generally not difficult to get rid of. Another option is a bold merge, if you can figure out a parent topic for them. Non-notable neighborhoods would go to the parent town, for example. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam, @PMC, tonight I made an attempt to add new cite at article Leonel Navarrete (Mexican footballer). Wondering if worldfootball.net is a reliable source? When I looked at the site's legal page here, they appear to be an established business corporation (Germany). Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Evening! Based on what I could find from Google and the WP for football, that seems to be an acceptable source. There’s actually a specific template for it as well (I’m on mobile so I won’t try to link it and mess up this response). If you want to try cleaning up some footballer articles, that could be a very nice sweep. Usually you can find out if a website is reliable by googling something like Wikipedia, the name of the site, and ‘reliable source’ and checking out talk pages of various projects. if it’s a popular website, they have usually already done the legwork. Kazamzam (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam, @PMC, tonight I made an attempt to add new cite at article Leonel Navarrete (Mexican footballer). Wondering if worldfootball.net is a reliable source? When I looked at the site's legal page here, they appear to be an established business corporation (Germany). Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kazamzam, @PMC, At WP Reliable sources, Google maps is shown as "No consensus" for Reliable/Not reliable. So today, at Category:Orphaned articles from October 2013 I de-orphaned these two articles.
- Kalattiyur, add cite - Google maps - Kalattiyur, Chikkarampalayam, Tamil Nadu, India
- Bharariwal, add cite - Google maps - Bharariwal, Amritsar, Punjab, India
- Step 1 = add article Google maps cite.
- Step 2 = add article to district, Villages section with Google maps cite.
- Step 3 = remove orphan tag.
Wondering if these updates are Okay? Thanks for helping me. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would strongly advise against citing Google Maps, it's really not reliable for determining whether something is a legally-recognized settlement that meets GEOLAND. census2011.co.in is honestly much better for that purpose, as it uses the census data. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- @PMC - Thanks, I've moved Google maps into Not reliable section here. JoeNMLC (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Great, now be sure to go through and remove or rollback those changes as they are not reliable and should not be kept. Kazamzam (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam - Yes, I was intending to do those rollbacks tomorrow morning, but now both are done tonight. I did searches at census2011.co.in as @PMC recommends. Both of those villages are not found at that census website, so does that mean it is Ok to do "Proposed deletion" next? JoeNMLC (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately these articles can be difficult to resolve as they are often riddled with issues and require some detective work. I would double check by searching the tehsil/taluk list (these are administrative divisions similar to a US county). Sometimes people use different transliterations of the native-language name than the census does. Usually it's pretty obvious - "Bhariwal" for "Bariwal" or "Bariwhal", that kind of thing.
- Let's start with Kalattiyur. The article states that Karamadai is the taluk. However, Karamadai isn't a taluk, it's a town in Mettupalayam taluk, so that's not right. Looking at the list of villages in Mettupalayam, I don't see any places with similar names to Kalattiyur, so I don't think it's a census-recognized village. I searched Google books to see if there are any mentions of Kalattiyur, but found nothing, which supports that. My guess is that Kalattiyur is perhaps a neighborhood or area within another town or village ("village" in India is a legal designation so they can be quite large but still called villages). Google maps lists Chikkarampalayam (a large village in Mettupalayam taluk) as part of the address for Kalattiyur, so it could be part of Chikkarampalayam. I did a search for Kalattiyur+Chikkarampalayam and I came up with this election document where someone lists their address as being in "Kalattiyur, Chikkarampalayam village". I'm satisfied that it's not a legally-recognized place that meets GEOLAND, and that it's part of Chikkarampalayam, so I'm gonna redirect it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Bharariwal is a little clearer, since it's right in the article text - "the village was incorporated within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Amritsar in 1974 and the institution of Panchayat was abolished." This is no longer a legally-recognized separate place, it's basically a neighborhood of Amritsar. This book seems to bear that out, saying "Bharariwal is a part of Ward no 25" in Amritsar. So I'm going to again go ahead and redirect that, this time to Amritsar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @PMC - Double WOW! - Now I understand how & why those India locations are so "complex". And I should just skip them for both de-orphan and un-ref. tasks. THank you so much for fixing those two articles. Late last night, I did work on Andri Abubakar article and found reliable cite from worldfootball.net website. So I know these football articles are ones I can improve. For de-orphaning, I started mini-tracking wikitables here to keep me on-track. For some unknown reason, after about 6-weeks those 2014 articles are again showing (Query) many more orphan articles eligible to be un-tagged. I do like that un-tagging but at times it gets to be very boring (repeat, repeat, repeat) so I do like to skip onto something else for variety. Gota go now as today should be a "non-wikipedia" day for me. Best wishes, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, if you can find them on the census list (and most of them you can) they're not that bad to deal with. My trick is usually to do all the ones in one district at once, either by creating a navbox for the district, like Template:Anand district, or where there's a huge number of villages, a "List of villages in Something district" article instead. It's just the edge cases that can be really wonky. And feel free to remove any unsourced "village cruft" from them rather than desperately trying to source it, it's usually unencyclopedic or irrelevant anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @PMC - Late yesterday, I found List of administrative divisions by country and saw in the India section what you describe above, interesting. And thanks for the navbox and list ideas. Sometime ago I recall one of those orphan categories with several hundred India towns & villages articles so, yes the navbox & list articles are helpful ways to group articles with a common District/Locality. For navbox, a fun thing I worked on (August 2022) was at {{Years in Romania}}, combining 4 templates into one. Just never thought of doing the same with articles. For lists, I see that at List of villages in Agder (Norway), it contains a comprehensive References section without needing to add a ref. on every line. The column setup looks clear & easy to follow. Wondering if those red links were deleted articles? History shows this list was from merger of two lists. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, if you can find them on the census list (and most of them you can) they're not that bad to deal with. My trick is usually to do all the ones in one district at once, either by creating a navbox for the district, like Template:Anand district, or where there's a huge number of villages, a "List of villages in Something district" article instead. It's just the edge cases that can be really wonky. And feel free to remove any unsourced "village cruft" from them rather than desperately trying to source it, it's usually unencyclopedic or irrelevant anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @PMC - Double WOW! - Now I understand how & why those India locations are so "complex". And I should just skip them for both de-orphan and un-ref. tasks. THank you so much for fixing those two articles. Late last night, I did work on Andri Abubakar article and found reliable cite from worldfootball.net website. So I know these football articles are ones I can improve. For de-orphaning, I started mini-tracking wikitables here to keep me on-track. For some unknown reason, after about 6-weeks those 2014 articles are again showing (Query) many more orphan articles eligible to be un-tagged. I do like that un-tagging but at times it gets to be very boring (repeat, repeat, repeat) so I do like to skip onto something else for variety. Gota go now as today should be a "non-wikipedia" day for me. Best wishes, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam - Yes, I was intending to do those rollbacks tomorrow morning, but now both are done tonight. I did searches at census2011.co.in as @PMC recommends. Both of those villages are not found at that census website, so does that mean it is Ok to do "Proposed deletion" next? JoeNMLC (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Great, now be sure to go through and remove or rollback those changes as they are not reliable and should not be kept. Kazamzam (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @PMC - Thanks, I've moved Google maps into Not reliable section here. JoeNMLC (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
PetScan tool for orphan and unreferenced articles
Hi @Kazamzam and @PMC, Recently I ran the PetScan tool for Sept. 2023 orphan articles, making a list of footballers. Then, I searched at worldfootball.net reliable source website for these players, and found very many. I did this all in bunch, so very helpful. Next I will be adding the first cite to each article, then de-orphan by adding player to YYYY in association football article, mostly Births section. Lastly, removing the orphan tag. FYI, I did update my Petscan page here for the process. It's nice to work on this, taking a break from de-tagging some of those hundreds of orphan articles. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Verifiability
Hi again. I wanted to clarify why I reverted your edits on Troy Creek. The source you used was reliable but it did not verify any of the information in the article. At most it would have been acceptable for citing the coordinates in an infobox but it doesn't verify any of the content, i.e. about salinity and the water quality issues that are repeatedly mentioned in the article. Furthermore, sources like this involve a lot of digging around on the part of the person trying to affirm information about the topic. Especially for places that have common names, this can be an issue because there will be multiple hits. But again, the bigger issue is that the cited reference verifies almost nothing in the article. We see this a lot in other references - a passing mention of a topic in a book does not a reference make.
Sourcing some of these location stubs, as @
- ( 1 ) After due consideration (debating with myself), I understand that adding new references to articles is not for me. I can update those association football player biography articles (since I found those reliable sources), and un-tagging those not-orphan articles. Both are more than enough to keep me busy.
- ( 2 ) Question - after reading this Signpost article Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/Serendipity about The Wikipedia Library, am impressed by all the sources there. So all those are Reliable sources?
- ( 3 ) Excessive citations article List of Irish local government areas 1898–1921. At "Citations" section, wondering if that tag can be removed?
- Hi @JoeNMLC, thank you for your response.
- 1. I really do not want to discourage you from adding new references to articles - you clearly have a great passion for editing and the URA is very short on editors. What I'm suggesting is being a little bit slower and considering what references work and why they work. There are a lot of low-hanging fruit that can be easily sourced from existing articles, i.e. list of Algerian films, most of which have articles that can be used as sources for references for the list. For example, one of the first films listed in the Algerian films article is The Battle of Algiers, which has 49 references. As referencing becomes more intuitive, expanding to other topics will become very intuitive. If you'd like, we can work on referencing an article together.
- 2. The Wikipedia Library describes itself as a "place for active Wikipedia editors to gain access to the vital reliable sources that they need to do their work". There are still potential issues with citing primary sources but overall I think it's an excellent repository.
- 3. I think the excessive citations tag can be removed given that there are 34 individual counties to be referenced, each of which has sub-units. Personally, I would use the EC tag for when there are something like 10 citations on a specific sentence (unnecessary and disruptive of the prose of the article). Does that make sense? Yes it's a lot of citations but it's also a large article that needs a lot of citations. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Kazamzam Thanks for your feedback. ( 2 above ) - For that list of Algerian films, I did add one reference at the last entry of "Award-winning Algerian films" section. When I checked the first one, The Battle of Algiers, I could not find a decent reference for Film, Director, or Awards. For film Rome plutôt que vous, nothing for film or director but there looks to be a good ref. for that film's award. So that is what I added. And you're right, that entire list needs more. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
November Articles for creation backlog drive
Hello JoeNMLC:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Orphan article
Hi Joe, hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you could help me de-orphan (un-orphan?) the article Daohugouthallus. It has a number of links but a lot of the articles where I think it is appropriate to include are not very fleshed out. It might be possible to include it on some lists but I'm hoping to make a more organic connection. If you have any suggestions, I would really appreciate it! Best, Kazamzam (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Kazamzam, Even though I'm not familiar with this topic, I made attempt to de-orphan Daohugouthallus article with wikilink at Ningcheng County article. Hope this helps. If not, perfectly okay to revert. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
Hello. Your recent edit to Biella appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Denisarona - Please explain as I made no edits to Biella article. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- The edit was on 5 October 2021. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's pretty ridiculous to template someone with a "your recent edit" template for an edit that was over two years ago. On top of that, there was an article for that person at the time Joe made the edit, which you'd have seen if you'd bothered to check. It wasn't even deleted for notability reasons, but as a G5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- The edit was on 5 October 2021. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Review aggregator
Hi. You added a {{Further}} to Review aggregator that seems out of place, particularly the phrase "the former website" which would refer to a specific website previously mentioned. I'm curious what in your opinion justifies singling out Movie Review Intelligence there. Is there something about the context that makes it more notable than, say, Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes? --95.99.94.82 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- @95.99.94.82 - Thanks for the feedback. Yes I agree, so I removed that "Further" and replaced with a sentence giving Movie Review Intelligence as an aggregator example. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
|
|
| |
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) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
That was bad draftification, and I have reverted your move. Subject clearly passes
I appreciate Gidonb's and your work improving and expanding the article. It's in much better shape. However, I'd appreciate you not withdrawing the AfD nomination when you're not the nominator. I've edited the page and withdrawn it myself now. Thanks, Sgubaldo (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Sgubaldo you're right. Sorry-I got caught up in the process & forgot. Note to self = don't Withdraw if I'm not the Nominator. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
New page creation
Hello
I just created a new music page called Starry but I've got some tags on it . Can you enlighten me on how to improve on the article .. I'll appreciate your response on this sir. Thanks Princeisrael2728 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings @Princeisrael2728 - While I am not familiar with musician biographies, I did update the article's Talk with relevant WikiProjects. The Rater ORES assessment tool rates the article as "Start" class. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oh... Ok thanks so much Princeisrael2728 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to let you know -- that wasn't me who requested a reassessment of Bertram Fletcher Robinson, I added the line below it
I think you mistakenly credited that unsigned comment to me on the reassessment queue! I added the comment below it, not the unsigned Bertram Fletcher Robinson request. Apologies for any confusion!! Wasianpower (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Wasianpower for letting me know. I updated the Unsigned, and hopefull this time it's correct. Sorry for the mix-up. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Amitava Das (researcher) moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Amitava Das (researcher). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it does not meet notability criteria. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings @Ldm1954 - fyi, my only "contribution" to this article was to remove the Orphan tag. So I am unable to improve the Draft. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
List of given names derived from fiction
Thanks for adding a link to List of given names derived from fiction from Anakin (given name). The list has been proposed for deletion, so please improve or defend it if you think it's worth it. – Fayenatic London 20:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
PRODs
Hi Joe. Regarding your PRODs of Indian villages, these names are not originally written in English but appear on Wikipedia as transliterations from various different languages, so their spellings are not consistent or uniform. It's therefore more time-consuming to track down the sources than just putting a single spelling into Google. Ingratis (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see above that you've already (September 2023) had some discussion about Indian places, which contains some very interesting and useful points - I'm sorry for assuming that you were unaware of the issues. Nevertheless I'd like to add a couple of points, in no particular order: a) I agree with the above comments about www.census2011.co.in, but it is a deprecated site and is high risk as a sole reference; b) notability is not temporary - even if the latest census is not available, earlier ones still may be and are just as valid; c) (this is particularly important) if you are redirecting to another article, that article MUST mention the thing that you are redirecting, which MUST be referenced, like any other piece of information. Looking at the two places named above (Kalattiyur and Bharariwal), for example, this has not happened. Now I will leave you in peace, but please contact me if you would like to discuss further. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Point of nitpicking: Census2011 is not deprecated. It is not listed at RSP, and I cannot find any discussion at RSN that ended with consensus to deprecate. The last discussion of it I can find was over four years ago. You may be thinking of the spam blacklist, but it is no longer on there as of a few years ago, at my request, because the official 2011 census site has been down for years, and census2011 serves as a useful mirror. Obviously I'll be happy to see it go when Census 2021 is finished, sometime in 2025 if we're lucky. But until then, it's not deprecated nor is it inaccurate in my experience.
- That being said, Joe, Ingratis has a point here. I know we've talked about Indian locations a few times. You need to be very very careful that you've exhausted all opportunities to find any indication that these places meet GEOLAND. Keep in mind the extensive detective work I did in our September 2023 conversation - checking the name, cross-checking the census by taluk to look for similar spellings, checking Google maps for possible alternate spellings, etc, etc etc. If you're not prepared to exhaust every possible avenue, or you're not 100% confident, it's best to just skip these. It's better to mark some things as attempted and let the next person take care of them than to make a PROD or redirect in error. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm delighted to hear that Census2011 is now OK, since it is so useful.
It was previously much frowned upon if not actually blacklisted as a commercial site: see for example this discussion which links backwards to earlier ones.You're right - this is the spam blacklist. Things change, however, occasionally for the better! Ingratis (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)- @Ingratis and @PMC - Sorry for my mistake, and thanks PMC for the reminder of "Attempted" de-orphan. I've been away on an archive search (hard-copy) for another organization that I volunteer for. Found the needed 2021 magazine article to reference for their webpage. Enjoyed "the hunt" and success. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Joe. Indian villages used to be a favourite hunting ground at AfD and PROD for editors looking for easy deletions, because they can be so difficult to source properly, and many have been deleted wrongly, so I feel somewhat protective towards them. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ingratis and @PMC - Sorry for my mistake, and thanks PMC for the reminder of "Attempted" de-orphan. I've been away on an archive search (hard-copy) for another organization that I volunteer for. Found the needed 2021 magazine article to reference for their webpage. Enjoyed "the hunt" and success. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm delighted to hear that Census2011 is now OK, since it is so useful.
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello JoeNMLC,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Edit notice
I saw this edit[1] and I've reverted it. I just think that the message you're adding can be a bit long and takes up much of the page. The unreferenced tag already helps prompt editors to search for sources in various ways, and links to relevant policy. Have a good day ForksForks (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @ForksForks - Thanks for the feedback. There are two things I am hoping to accomplish with the notice. First, a reminder to occasional contributors of the criteria; and to help new editors just starting out with referencing. Below is a more condensed version of previous notice.
Please improve this Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be: (1) reliable, (2) secondary, (3) independent of the subject, (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Article was created on 5 March 2007. |
- On the article pages, the background changes to be white instead of the tan color on talk pages. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Joe, I'm not sure it's necessary or useful to create a maintenance tag that's redundant to the existing unreferenced one. If you think the current one should explain things in more detail, maybe propose that at the ]
- Hi @PMC and @ForksForks, Today I started a feedback/discussion at WP Unreferenced articles, Discussion - criteria Ambox for unref. articles section. Also, I changed the criteria into a condensed transcluded "Ambox" instead. It's an active WikiProject so hoping for constructive advice there as well. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Joe, I'm not sure it's necessary or useful to create a maintenance tag that's redundant to the existing unreferenced one. If you think the current one should explain things in more detail, maybe propose that at the ]
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
|
|
| |
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) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)