Jump to content

User talk:Utopes/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Utopes,

I just wanted to share a comment with you about pages like Siege of Ani (1124). Admins patrolling the CSD categories are much more likely to take swift action on requests like this if, using Twinkle, you select CSD>G6 Move and then in the field, you put the name of the page you want moved. Then the admin can check out the page, make sure the move is appropriate and then, with one edit, delete the redirect page and move the draft/article. I can't speak for all admins but I think they are less likely to delete a valid redirect so that another editor can move the page. I realize that to an editor, it may not seem any different from having another editor move the page. I'm just sharing what I've seen happen with G6 CSD requests like this. Thanks for all of the work you do! Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Hey Liz, thanks for the message! I believe there may have made a mistake in that box at first. Initially I put in Draft:Siege of Ani into the Twinkle field, but then I quickly realized that I needed to add "(1124)", which is what I did in a follow-up edit a few seconds later. I was actually curious about what had occurred there, because an hour after I tagged Siege of Ani, I did the same with Draft:Tourism in Tripura in prep for an AfC move. That time the draft title had no issues, and it was quickly processed by 78.26. I suppose my question then is does fixing a wikilink in the CSD tag show up on the admin side of things? Visitng the page now, the G6 Move tag in question still has Draft:Siege of Ani (1124) linked, but that would've happened only after fixing the mistype. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Help me

Can you help me to edit my draft Omiddefuri (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious

reviewing

Thank you for quality articles about chemistry, from creating such as Nitrosyl perchlorate to FA plans for Chromium, for disambiguation pages and redirects, for reviewing on a large scale, be it articles for creation or GA nominations, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2919 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow! Thank you so much for the recognition! Reviewing usually goes under the radar compared to the people who do the writing, so this means a lot. I guess this is motivation to keep working on improving article quality then ^^ 😅. The Chromium FA might be quite far into the future; I feel it might be better to get some practice with a GA here or there in the meantime, which all-in-all might be months or years. I'll do my best though! Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Adidas Top Ten

Hello Utopes. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Adidas Top Ten, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: @DrowssapSMM, Justlettersandnumbers, Pppery, LeDroider, Voorts, Bruxton, Deb, and Utopes: Please see User talk:DrowssapSMM#Speedy deletion declined: Adidas Top Ten and the draft article itself: "Submission declined on 2 March 2024 by Deb". I'm quite obviously WP:INVOLVED here, and will not particpate in any action requiring WP:ADMIN privileges. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shirt58: It was declined due to a lack of adherence to NPOV on 2 March, and not for notability. The NPOV issues, in my eyes, have since been fixed. I tagged it for CSD in preparation of moving this to mainspace, and in the discussion you linked me it seems as if someone had previously attempted to do the same as well, although that was before the 2 March decline. The article has improved since then. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Eli Hass decline

Thank you for your help with the article Jeffrey Eli Hass, which you declined. I am new to authoring, as you could probably tell. I have made the improvements you suggested and resubmitted. In the Awards, etc. heading, I have located and cited secondary sources. I have also removed external links to from the body. Once I am able, and the article is approved, I will likely move it to the title "Jeffrey Hass" (remove middle name) as this is what the composer's music and recordings are published under and at the moment, there are no disambiguation issues. Please feel free to make other suggestions you believe can improve the article. Snackwell122 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ossama Kamal is declined

Hi @Utopes, thanks for reviewing my article about Ossama Kamal, the Egyptian TV host.

I'd like to let you know that all references are well established news platforms in Egypt, in addition to links of his own companies and Expos.


In addition, I've added a new reference, which is a YouTube link to a TV interview, where he was the guest, and talked about his background, education, and career, so all info in the article could be verified by his own interview. Abdoelmallah (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

It was not on my bucket list but regardless of the outcome, thanks for recommending me for the autopatrolled permission. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers

Figured you might like to know you're beating the bot for weekend redirect reviews, and it isn't even close. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis

Hello Utopes,

I understand that you reverted my edit on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. However, what I only partially understand is that all the content from the former article is already included in the current "Multiple sclerosis diagnosis" entry, so why should it be controversial to delete the old lemma? Tobiasi0 (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Star San draft fixes

Hi Utopes,

Thanks for the feedback at Draft:Star_San. I believe I have addressed the issues and would love it if you can take another look at it! Driftybiscuit (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Clorinda (Once Upon a Time)

Have you see my proposed solutions?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I declined my own draft

I declined my own draft guys!!!Visnalize (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello, I saw you nominated many redirects I created for deletion. If the creator's desire is enough to procede, feel free to delete them all since I support that decision. Thank you and I apologize for any inconvenience. 7szz (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

PS. for context: I'm no longer active or interested, and wish I could delete my account and change the visibility of all my edits but that's unfortunately not possible. Those redirects are not useful. 7szz (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

New editor: Thanks so much

Hi there user Utopes. I wanted to say thank you for reviewing my draft for T-Money so quickly, it was my first wikipedia article for creation submission and you gave me some great feedback. I also got some help through Teahouse. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at the edits I made to my draft, and lend more feedback. I'd be greatly appreciative! @Utopes Taevchoi (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! I took another look at the article and it's looking pretty solid so far. Looks to be neutrally-worded, the sources seem solid enough, and as a whole I think it could totally stand on its own as an article. The only current roadblock that I can foresee with this draft, is the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Money (rapper), specifically the fact that T-Money didn't quite meet the notability guidelines for musicians at the time, set out by WP:MUSICBIO. I think what you've written here is arguably much better than what used to be at the T-Money (rapper) article (which is currently a redirect, but its former contents are viewable in the history, or with this link: [1]) If you can read over that discussion and let me know how T-Money qualifies for an article per the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines, I'd be happy to approve. Thanks for the message! Utopes (talk / cont) 06:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Utopes! Thanks a lot for your help. I appreciate you taking the time to compare my edits to the previous text that was created for T-Money in 2016. Looking at the discussion in the articles for deletion, I can tell that a huge concern was the absence of reliable sources. Furthermore, user Innisfree987 was trying to get in contact with the editor to help improve the page before it was deleted, but it seems they were not able to get in contact. I'd like to quote user Innisfree987, "Certainly if editor or others come back to work on it and can provide more sources, then great. Working with Dr. Dre and MTV on hiphop in the '80s is potentially a very important piece of music history; we just need the WP account of it to meet verifiability standards." I agree that the original Wikipedia article for T-Money was poorly written by a first time Wikipedia editor. As a first time editor myself, I initially thought all the article needed was more sources. Through the feedback of my peers, such as yourself and those at Teahouse, I realized the cadence and the integrity of the sources needed work as well. I also agree that T-Money's contribution to 80s hip-hop is rather significant to hip-hop history as a whole, especially since Original Concept was an early group signed to Def Jam. And outside of his group, he made a name for himself through hosting Yo! MTV Raps. I believe that T-Money qualifies for his own article because he meets numbers 1 and 10 of the guidelines. The sources I included in my draft are much stronger and more credible than the sources that were included in the 2016 draft. I am eager to hear your thoughts, @Utopes! Thanks again! Taevchoi (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there @Utopes! My intention is never to rush you as I know we are all busy with our lives offline, but I wanted to flag my reply above in case you missed it! Thanks again and looking forward to discussing with you. :) Taevchoi (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please undo this AFC

You created a whole ton of redirects following the request here even though there is no confusion. These all violate WP:R3. Please delete them all.

A tag has been placed on [[:SpaceX Transporter / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter / Falcon 9 Transporter / Transporter (SpaceX) / Transporter (Falcon 9) / Transporter (SpaceX Falcon 9) // SpaceX Transporter mission / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter mission / Falcon 9 Transporter mission // SpaceX Transporter missions / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter missions / Falcon 9 Transporter missions // SpaceX Transporters / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporters / Falcon 9 Transporters]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by [[:SpaceX Transporter / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter / Falcon 9 Transporter / Transporter (SpaceX) / Transporter (Falcon 9) / Transporter (SpaceX Falcon 9) // SpaceX Transporter mission / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter mission / Falcon 9 Transporter mission // SpaceX Transporter missions / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporter missions / Falcon 9 Transporter missions // SpaceX Transporters / SpaceX Falcon 9 Transporters / Falcon 9 Transporters|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ergzay (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The list these redirects target includes multiple SpaceX transporters. I don't understand why these would be implausible typos or misnomers if they're actively discussed in depth at the page in question. I'm currently eating dinner so I'm open to discussing this more later, but if your only statement is: "there is no confusion, these violate R3" when the missions are indeed called "Transporters", then I'm not quite sure why these are tagged, as you haven't (seemingly) explained what & how they violate R3. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, these titles have all existed for nearly 4 months now. Plausibility out of the way, these can't even be considered recently created by R3's definition due to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#cite note-recent-14. I'd recommend you undo your speedy tagging, and/or bring these to WP:RFD if you feel there's a more suitable outcome for these titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd say they still count as recent given that it's unlikely anyone has seen them until now and nothing was linking to them. Ergzay (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Clearly not "no links" as you've pointed at the AfC page that created them. A redirect-requesting service, which received thousands of pageviews across the weekspan that the SpaceX titles were listed front and center. At the bare minimum, there was one person to request, one person to accept, and one person to archive, and likely 30 other editors that saw this and let it be. R3 points to "leniency for areas that don't get a lot of attention" (so maybe 3-4 weeks instead of ~2-3). The only page on Wikipedia dedicated to creating new redirects would be the opposite of this. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't reverse my point anywhere that nothing links to them. I still maintain that. Ergzay (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It is linked in the AfC archives and shows up on the "what links here" page. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I opened a discussion on WP:RFD, in a non standard method because of the page quantity. Ergzay (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks to be 14 redirects. That's definitely doable for one discussion. Participating in an RfD without being able to see the redirects at the getgo is a major hassle. It would be preferred to just link them all, following the instructions set at WP:RFDHOWTO. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
They all link to the same thing and they're visible in the AFC link title. Ergzay (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to do it, but someone who watches RfD definitely is (going to list all of the pages individually), and that's if they don't just close the discussion outright for being broken. According to WP:RFDHOWTO, you are required to put an RfD notice on the pages of all redirects involved (which you haven't done), as well as notify the talk page of the target article that the discussion is taking place (not done). The Twinkle gadget makes this process incredibly easy, and I'd highly recommend you do this before it inconveniences an uninvolved RfD patroller. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
What is a "Twinkle gadget"? Ergzay (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you sent me this CSD notification, usually that gets semi-automated through Twinkle, but you're able to configure it at WP:TWINKLE. After doing so, there's a button that shows up at the top of the article (next to the edit button) that lets you nominate that page for deletion without having to manually paste templates. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I just wrote the template into the post, as most people do AFAIK. Never even heard anyone mention this Twinkle thing before nor have I seen it in any guide or tutorial. Ergzay (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Glad you found it! If I had to estimate I'd say that 95% of all tagging done in 2024 is through Twinkle, and basically 99% of all XfD discussions now. Twinkle also does user-talk tags too with the same level of ease. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
They are not called "Transporters" in any source I have seen nor in any of the articles. Perhaps the only one that seems like maybe I can undo it on is the SpaceX Transporter missions page. Anything with "Transporters" in the name is definitely out. Ergzay (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Listed at the DAB as Transporters-1 through Transporter-15, and linked accordingly. Decided to test the hypothesis by splitting the middle and searched externally for "Transporter-8"; all Google search results were for the SpaceX mission. "Transporter" is mentioned at the target 40+ times, and never in context of transporting a vehicle, but the context was instead the name of this mission series. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Similarly any ending in "Transporter" are wrong for the same reason as for example "Falcon 9 Transporter" implies a vehicle that carries Falcon 9. Ergzay (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
If "Transporter" is featured at the target in a manner that doesn't involve carrying a vehicle (which still seems to be the case), then this isn't a problem. I don't believe there's any encyclopedic content about a "Falcon 9 carrier vehicle" on Wikipedia, so in absence of this, the Transporter series remains as the primary topic for this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
That's just complete retroactive self-justification... The links are actively confusing in their titles. As you mention, the name is never used in reference transportation of Falcon 9, which means keeping redirects around that imply exactly that is a bad idea. As you mention in your previous comment "Transporter" is always linked to "mission". I have never seen the word Transporter used without the word "mission" attached to it or some word meaning a rough equivalent. Ergzay (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Transporter" is the name of the series, never said that it's always linked to mission, that just happens to be the context its in and therefore doesn't conflict with a hypothetical carrier vehicle. I'd rather save this part for the RfD once it gets up and running. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
"Transporter missions" would be the series. Ergzay (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The series seems to be Transporter-1, Transporter-2, etc. The series of missions could apparently be called the "Transporter" series. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for successfully nominating me for autoprotrolled rights. That sparked my interest in actively editing again. — Knightoftheswords 18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Utopes/Archive_15&oldid=1231633647"