Talk:Wagmag

Requested move
''Reason for move: The article is misnamed, but there are worse stubs than this, and after finishing the move request I will do cleanup and add scaffolding and categories to make it a good stub. If it then still gets no real content put in it any time soon, it can be prod again.''

The delete petitioner put "despite requests to improve the article...". I don't see any requests to improve the article here on the talk page. In fact I've only just started the talk page. Where are they then? If it's not proposed on the talk page it is rather hard for editors to see them isn't it? The original editor might have fallen under a bus, changed IP, or whatever, for all I know.

I don't think the article should be under this title, but rather than delete it I propose a move to Wagmag. The article is a stub, but I can't see any harm in that (I'll do some cleanup in a bit adding in some basic journal info). On the other hand, beyond the references it's not adding much right now, so may as well be deleted and can be recreated as Wagmag when somebody can be bothered actually to put some info in.

To be clear, I am not involved in this journal in any way and have never even heard of it. I just know from experience with Afterall, for example, and other articles, that with a bit of help from an editor putting some of the scaffolding in place (infoboxes etc), an editor unused to and a little scared of Wikipedia editing may suddenly start adding real content to it. I think it's worth trying, to delete it from the new location will be hardly more difficult than from here.

SimonTrew (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * done dm (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

reply
I was referring to the warning boxes on the article which had been added over time. I then looked at the creators contribs and .. it was just this one article. I'm fine with your proposal to move. dm (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

help
i need some help to links, source this article and am not clear of the coding and guidelines. I think in my attempt I did not cite material correctly. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mymontrose (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you need help, I am happy to help you fix this up. I am an inclusionist and see no harm in it being here, but it has been idle for about a month without inmprovement. Either hit me at User talk:SimonTrew or if you want I am you could try WP:Adoption. I know it is hard when you are starting out (as I am assuming you are). I struggle too but can maybe tell you things nobody told me.


 * The "Manual of Style" at WP:MOS is the Holy Bible for style guidelines here.


 * SimonTrew (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod
OK this is the third time it's gone prod. It's just going around the houses now.

I've sourced the images. I've got copyright source. I've added information. I've helped the new Wikipedia editor who created the editor to give him some clues. I've added infoboxes. I've done, to the best of my understanding, everything I can to put the templates in the right place. And still it goes prod.

I give up, I just give up. SimonTrew (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wagmag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327092509/http://www.visitbrooklyn.org:80/profile.php?pid=357 to http://www.visitbrooklyn.org/profile.php?pid=357

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)