User talk:Erakura/Archives/2009/November

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Occitan cuisine 2
helpme Hello #wikipedia-en-help -- I could use your input at Occitan cuisine. I suggested a while ago that it be merged into Occitania however this hasn't been done. What would be the proper way to handle an article like this according to Wikipedia policy - or should I just wait out the merge and see if anyone does it? I think it's a subject that not many editors will run into, so it might be quite a while. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, two things:
 * You should actually explain on one of the talk pages why you think the articles should be merged, so as to initiate discussion. (And link to the discussion from the other talk page). The talk page for Occitan cuisine remains untouched.
 * When proposing a merge you should add mergefrom to the target page, as well as the mergeto template on the source page.
 * Try making the suggestion again, but follow those additional steps, and then wait a while for a response.  AJ Cham  03:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added both merge templates. However both templates link to the target article to be merged into when you click Discuss. I checked and there is a discussion here: Talk:Occitania. Thanks! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DYK
I'll help, just let me know what you had in mind :) I'm non-admin though  IShadowed  ✰  21:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Spike Rawlings DYK
Hi, I have (hopefully!) addressed the issue you raised with the above DYK now. Thanks, GiantSnowman 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of History of Galveston, Texas
''Hello! Your submission of History of Galveston, Texas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)''


 * I responded on the DYK page. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I did not look deeply enough into the DYK criteria.
 * At the risk of being naive, can you clarify the process? As a general rule when I create an article I do it piecemeal over several days. It is rarely the case that either
 * In the time between creating the stub and bringing it to a level that it is stable, only 5 days would have elapsed.
 * I would expand the article by a factor of 5 in only 5 days.
 * This applies to most other authors I have worked with. So does this mean if I want an article to be DYK-eligible I should develop it entirely within a sandbox and then upload it all at once so that it can be nominated?
 * Thanks. Sorry if I am being dense.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandboxing it in a userpage, i.e. User:Mcorazao/History of Galveston, Texas then moving/copying it to mainspace would be fine. Sorry about your article not working out for DYK - I'm sure you'll get it next time. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Filling DYK prep areas
Thanks a lot for helping there. When you move a hook to a prep area, please delete it from T:TDYK - otherwise it can easily be promoted twice. One way to do that is edit the hook's section, blank it and leave the summary saying that it is moved to prep1 or prep2. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Forgot to add - (i) when selecting the hooks, try to go from the bottom of T:TDYK. (ii) I think I deleted from T:TDYK all the hooks you promoted. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try selecting hooks from the bottom of T:TDYK queue! There are many good reasons for that. One being that the longer the hook spends at T:TDYK the more chances to find mistakes in the nom - no reviewer is perfect. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry - it slipped my mind completely. I'll finish the ones that I had already done then immediately move to bottom ones. I apologize. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 04:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

M. Baebius Tamphilus
Thanks for your remarks, and I appreciate your care for sourcing. But I'm not using Wikipedia articles as sources; I think it's pretty evident that the text of the article is supported by sufficient secondary and primary sources. The footnotes you mention merely refer interested readers to articles that contain further information on related subjects. Number 3 links to the article on the Baebius gens, where further information can be found on the brother; this note is like a "see also", and the link is not meant to provide verification of information in the article. Number 28 is a redlink; its purpose is simply to provide a piece of information that would interrupt the flow of the text, not to verify the information in the text (and one day I'll try to provide an article on this person). Number 30 is a "see also"; again, it offers readers a place to go if they don't know anything about the Samnite Wars and why the territory into which the Apuani were moved was once Samnium. It doesn't verify the text; it points to further reading. Thanks again for your diligence, but I think if you look you'll see that these notes are "see also" links, like some others within the footnoted remarks, and not citations per se. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of socialist countries (3rd nomination)
Can you explain why you relisted this? Tim Song (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I relisted it because I felt that consensus was mixed and unclear, and that further discussion in attempt to reach consensus would be beneficial. If you feel that this was likely not the best idea, accept my apologies and let me know so that I may improve my actions in the future! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 01:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, relisting is not done when there are already !votes from a good number of editors. If consensus is unclear, an admin will simply close it as "no consensus". A rule of thumb I use is to relist only when either (1) there are less than 3 non-SPA !votes on either side, counting the nom as a delete, or (2) a late !vote raised a substantial issue that's not addressed (for example, if all the previous !votes says "delete I can't find sources" and a late "keep" !vote is accompanied by a list of sources that are not obviously nonreliable (i.e., not forums or blogs, etc.), it's prudent to relist it to generate some discussion on the significance and reliablity of the sources). Tim Song (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your closure of Articles for deletion/Avro Keyboard is inappropriate as well. While you might have withdrawn your nomination, there's one outstanding good faith !vote to delete, and so it should be allowed to run its course unless also withdraws his !vote - reading the discussion, it does not seem to be a snowball. Tim Song (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)