User talk:JoeNMLC/Archive 2021

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Requesting some help

Greetings,

Thanks for your recent help in the article Black Sea trade and economy to create a suitable lead from article content. I would like to request you to provide similar help to create the lead for the article History of the Black Sea if possible.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: - Often the easiest way to construct the article lead is by viewing another lead example. When I look at

Mediterranean Sea article with link to
History of the Mediterranean region

both of these show well written lead summarizing the content. So for History of the Black Sea I would recommend moving more content from Black Sea history section into the history article. That way it will make writing lead easier. Regards, 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Portal Barnstar
		The Portal Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have made significant contributions to topic portals. This barnstar goes to you for your significant work in expanding the Selected pictures entries at Portal:Astronomy. Thanks for your work to improve the portal, and for improving the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's WP:READERS! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: This award is quite unexpected & I am honored to accept the Barnstar. My earliest interests were science and geography. Not sure how that fits in with my 40+ years in the computer industry. Now being retired I enjoy helping to improve Wikipedia. For Astronomy, "Selected pictures" I'm working through the Zodiac constellations, choosing pictures that are both varied and somewhat educational so the Portal readers who are new to Astronomy may learn interesting facts about our universe. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's nice work, and the portal has grown a lot since you started expanding it. Keep up the good work! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Herbert Friedman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Herbert Friedman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13: - additional content by myself and another person. JoeNMLC (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hayes F.C.

Hi there, just to let you know I reverted your addition of Aaron Patton as a "See also" to the Hayes F.C. article. There are over 120 former Hayes players with articles, so there's no particular reason to single out one fairly insignificant player to be listed as a "see also" on the main club article IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing about Bali Peace Park in Perth#See also and Euphemia Welby in Order of the British Empire#See also. Each is one unremarkable example amongst hundreds of links which could be added if Wikipedia were a directory of such things. Certes (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Same with Actinonin. I get it that you're trying to un-orphan things and that's useful. However this is one anti-bacterial in an article that overarches Bacteria and Archaea. I'd suggest figuring out what makes actinonin, and adding it to that article instead. (I see you already did that at [[peptide deformylase]] which does look good to me.) Invasive Spices (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ChrisTheDude, Certes, and Invasive Spices: - Thanks for the feedbacks. Now that there are now less than 90,000 Orphaned articles I'm feeling a bit less stressed. When wikilinking one Stub-article to another Stub-article, I have sometimes wondered if both articles can/should be deleted. But again, I'm onto the De-Orphan stuff first, and have only tagged a few articles for Notability. I have read through the Deletion process & prefer to not get involved with that just yet. Just the other day, I found Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, an interesting read. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've also reverted several "see alsos" of unrelated tech companies. If you have some specific relationship that you've found reference to and want to highlight, you're welcome to edit the text of the articles to reflect that, with citations. But there was no obvious connection between any of the companies. They work in different fields, in different countries, and have no overlapping ownership, mission, or products. Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bill @Bwoodcock:, Thanks for letting me know. While working on Orphan articles that would explain the randomness of these updates. (Backlog is now less than 90,000 articles.) From now on, I will stay away from those business articles, especially when stub class. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You are still inappropriately "un-orphaning" things. You added Phormidium africanum to the "see also" section of Cyanobacteria. As far as I know, there is nothing of special interest about this particular species. There are over 2000 other species of cyanobacteria, most of them also of no particular interest. If you want to un-orphan a species that seems of no particular interest, you could go to the next higher level taxon for that species which has an article, like the genera, and list the species for that taxon. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Observatory chronometer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronometer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Amal Al-Awadhi

Hello,

Please Remove Amal Al-Awadhi From Notable People Section, as it not fair of adding 1 person and leaving many more important people who have pages in Wikipedia, it is better to remove than adding 100 other names.

Thank you. Sportshrejmann (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sportshrejmann: -

Done. Thanks for letting me know. I see there is article "Kuwait" about the country, and article "Kuwait City" that has a "Notable people" section. From the "Amal Al-Awadhi" infobox, it is unclear for "Born" so I added Amal Al-Awadhi to "List of Kuwaitis", "Arts" section instead. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving

Hi. Long-established articles, especially edited by more than one person, such as José Gralha, should not be moved to draft space. Please use WP:AfD to delete those articles, or tag them for improvements for those not suitable for deletion. Station1 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Station1: - Thanks for the feedback. While working on Orphan articles, I see there are many hundreds/thousands of these footballer non-notable articles, all needing updating. In order to stay focused on the Orphan articles, I prefer to not get involved with that deletion process. Today I added the Notablity-sport tag and reset the talk page class back to stub. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JoeNMLC.

Regarding Peter D. Easton, as a general, non-official, guideline, I wouldn't move to Draft space any article that is more than 6 months old, certainly not an 11 year old article, even if it is in bad shape. Those articles should be WP:PROD'd or sent to WP:AFD, not draftified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

De-orphaning

Hi Joe, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for working on the orphaned articles backlog. As one of the most active de-orphaners, I can certainly say it's a place that needs more eyes. That being said, I need to ask you to slow down and put more thought into the de-orphaning process. There is no deadline, and no need to feel stress over a backlog that has existed for longer than some of our younger editors :) Quality analysis of how best to de-orphan a given article in order to serve the reader is better than great speed. A "see also" link to an article that isn't clearly related does nothing to help the reader and defeats the process of de-orphaning in the first place. Additionally, many orphans are better off deleted as non-notable or merged elsewhere, which are options you don't seem to consider.

For example, you added San Benedetto, Florence to the see also section of Zenobius of Florence without any clear, referenced context as to why they're related. There's no indication that Immaculate Heart of Mary School, Bulacan and Immaculate Heart of Mary College-Parañaque are related in any way. In other cases, the article being de-orphaned might be better off not having an article at all: 75th Year of Independence Day of India is probably better off merged into Independence Day (India). List of popes from the Tuscolo family is unsourced, has a misspelled title, and is duplicative of the list already existing at Counts of Tusculum (I've now redirected it). These are just a few examples pulled from your recent contribs. I can see from the messages already on your talk page here that several experienced editors have asked you about this already, but it seems like your approach hasn't really changed.

Please slow down and take more care with what you are doing. Stick to the really easy orphans until you get the hang of it. If you have any questions about how to de-orphan a certain article, I'm happy to help, or you can just leave it and move on to the next one. Like I said - there's no rush, and no need to stress. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos:

Question: What I have trouble understanding is how to handle very poor/minimal (for example - one sentence) articles? If "Move to draft" is not an option, and "Delete" is not an option, what then? Just skip, and leave it hanging out there forever? imo, a good cleanup tool is needed to offset the daily flood of articles with Orphan tagging. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Some short articles don't really need to be standalones and can be merged upwards into others. I often merge very stubby articles about geographic features into "parent" articles. For an example, I merged a bunch of features that are on Booth Island into the Booth Island article. Be careful when opting for this as it's not always the best option. Some stub articles are simply not notable, and should be evaluated for deletion by doing a check for sourcing. I do this quite often too. Sometimes I find sources and wind up expanding the article quite a bit (Zahava Burack, Potato race are a couple of gems I de-orphaned and expanded to be Good Articles). Sometimes there's nothing, so I nominate for deletion. And finally, some topics are actually notable but can't really be expanded because sourcing isn't available. Populated places or elected politicians from places outside the west are often difficult to expand because of a lack of sourcing, but are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPOL respectively.

Like I said, if you can't figure out how to de-orphan something, especially since you're relatively new to the process, it's okay to just leave it for someone else to look at. No stress - the backlog doesn't hurt anyone, and there's hardly such a "flood" of new orphans that we need to stress about it. The backlog counter has actually been steadily going down for years :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Premeditated Chaos: Recently, I finished going through Biography articles at Category:Orphaned articles from January 2011, and skipped the "impossible/difficult" articles. Yesterday, I started a "second pass" through this cat., looking at non-bio articles.

Also "discovered"

and see how better context is still needed for many articles. And quite a number of bio. articles without the "listas" (on talk page) are also missing article "DEFAULTSORT". There definitely is enough variety of Wikipedia updates to keep me interested. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe, glad to hear you're still enjoying mucking about in the gritty underbelly of Wikipedia :) If you haven't come across it yet, WP:BACKLOG may be of interest to you as a sort of central clearinghouse of maintenance categories, organized by number in the category and also earliest extant category. For orphans that you've tried and found impossible, you can add "|att=October 2021" as a parameter within the orphan tag (so you'd have {{Orphan|date=September 2010|att=October 2021}} in the code) and it will put the article into a separate "attempted" category, so it can be signaled that it's been attempted and nothing has been found. It doesn't so much reduce the backlog as move it around a bit, but at least it helps cycle through the older categories. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Maryland Institute College of Art, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've added a source to correct this, but in the future, please include a citation when adding such material. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Lucas, British Columbia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucas, British Columbia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas, British Columbia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.