User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2019-04

__NOINDEX__

Will Firth
Translation values:
 * “It’s a tribute to the agility and perseverance of translator Will Firth that Krleža’s incendiary prose strikes home with such fluent power.”- Jonathan Bousfield reviewing Miroslav Krleža’s Journey to Russia on Stray Satellite, 2018
 * “A special place must also be accorded to Will Firth, who has translated the Bosnian original into an English laden with unique atmosphere, at once exotically local yet recognizably universal throughout.”- Andrew Singer reviewing Faruk Šehić's Quiet Flows the Una in World Literature Today, 2016
 * “Our Man in Iraq may well prove to be one of those rare cases where something is actually gained in translation.”- Emily Donaldson reviewing Robert Perišić's novel in The Star, 2013
 * --Ванилица (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I left my reply on their user talk page. But not before reading Our Man In Iraq by Robert Perisic: Review in the Star.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Salafi University for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salafi University 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 Articles for deletion/Salafi University 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. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I started this circa 2005 or 2006, when inclusion standards were much looser... Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cornish Stannary Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King John ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cornish_Stannary_Parliament check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cornish_Stannary_Parliament?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 12:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Los Roques (T-93AB) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Los Roques (T-93AB), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page or move it yourself. SSSB (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems I was leaving quality control volunteer SSSB a request for caution while they were leaving this boilerplate for incompetent newbies. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Mail
You have some. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour
Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour does not track the preliminary longlists at all. It never has before, and sources largely don't exist by which any of that content could be added now — and there's no legitimate reason for 2019 to be given unique treatment different than any of the preceding 70 years. Until the final shortlist gets issued, we simply do not care about the initial longlist at all, especially if you have to depend on Orillia's own community hyperlocal to actually source the longlist because no major media care about it either. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well there is https://www.leacock.ca/pdfs/2019_Leacock_Medal_Long_List_v2.pdf which looks oficial to me. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't care about the award's own self-published official press release at all. We require media to care enough to repackage the press release as news reporting before we care enough to add it to our article, so media reporting always trumps the award's own self-published content in terms of appropriateness for use as a source — the organization's press release is only appropriate for use if no media reportage can be found at all to verify the statement, and even then the question would need to be asked about whether the content needed to be included in the article at all if the press release was the only source that could be found. The source itself isn't the crux of issue in the first place — the issue is that there's no serious reason for the article to document the preliminary longlist at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , you may be correct that, in past years, generally only the shortlisted candidates were listed. But the other issue, adding references and content in two separate edits...  When a reference is relevant to multiple articles I sometimes take it from the article where it was originaly used, and add it to one or more of the other articles where it is relevant.  I have done this in two stages many times, hundreds, maybe thousands...  I am sure I am far from the only contributor to do so.  Do you have an actual policy document in mind that discourages good faith contributors from adding references and content in two stages, in reasonably quick succession?  If not, how likely is it that you would consider being less hasty to pull the trigger?  Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * George, perhaps you should change the reference to the official one, rather than secondhand information. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's not my job to simply assume that you're adding the content and the reference in two separate steps — especially if you add the reference first, in a format that's not consistent with the referencing format being used by the rest of the article, and then significantly lag in terms of adding the actual content for long enough that I have time to catch the addition of an unused reference. If you want to two-step it rather than adding the content and the referencing at the same time, then you need to add the content first and then the reference, not vice versa, because it's not my job to read your mind — I can only judge what I see that you have done, not what you're thinking about doing in the future.
 * And secondly, you haven't actually given a reason why 2019 needs to be unique in having the preliminary longlist added when we don't have (and can't find adequate sources to add) the preliminary longlists for any other year prior to 2019. All you did is acknowledge that I was correct in saying that it's never been done before, and then move on to your other complaint without actually providing a reason why 2019 needs to start doing something different than what's been done before. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, you and I are both long-term contributors. So, don't you think that, whatever our disagreements, we should try to show some basic respect to one another?
 * With regard to whether the most recent year should have the eleven initial candidates, or only the shortlisted candidates, when they are chosen... I already acknowledged you might be correct.  FWIW 1990 lists ten candidates.  Did they shortlist ten books in 1990?  Okay.  I don't care.
 * With regard to your comment that the reference I added was "not consistent with the reference formatting being used". Woah!  There are some quality control volunteers who mistakenly think policy authorizes them to unnecessarily rewrite references in a manner that they find aesthetically pleasing.  They generally misunderstand that the wikidocuments that warn contributors against mixing or changing "citation styles" refer to mixing the cite style references with the incompatible Harvard style references.  Both inline and list-defined references are completely compatible variants of the   styles.  Even if, for the sake of argument, it really did represent a policy problem to mix in the first list-defined reference into an article where every other reference was a list-defined cite reference, how closely did you look at the Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour?  It contains an inconsistent mix of inline cite references and inline  [http:... title]  references.  So, even from a super-purist interpretation, that new list-defined cite references can't be added to an article that had consistently used inline cite references up to that time, THIS article wasn't previously consistent.
 * With regard to "significant lag"... you reverted my new reference just five minutes after I added it.
 * I started User:Geo Swan/Uzma Jalaluddin about eight months ago. I started a google news alert on her at the same time.  That news alert had fetched me over 30 hits - instances where RS wrote about her or her book.  So, I decided that her nomination might be the moment where I could move the draft to article space without claims of TOOSOON.  As above, I added the Leacock reference I added to the draft to this article.  You say you are not a mind-reader?  I am not a mind-reader either.  Does the table have an explicit title, saying which candidates are listed there, as below?
 * {| class="wikitable" style="width:75%;"

!Year ! style="width:30%;"|Author !Title !Reference
 * + Winners and shortlisted candidates of the Stephen Leacock Medal for Humour
 * }
 * No, it does not... and then there are the 10 candidates listed for 1990.
 * So, Ali Bryan, Hadley Dyer, Uzma Jalaluddin, Cathal Kelly, Martin Myers, all currently lack articles. I am starting a draft at User:Geo Swan/Ali Bryan, which will use the same reference I added here, and I plan to do so for Hadley Dyer, Cathal Kelly, Martin Myers.  So, even if I agreed with your concern, I would not rewind until I had started User:Geo Swan/Hadley Dyer, User:Geo Swan/Cathal Kelly, User:Geo Swan/Martin Myers.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 10 candidates was the shortlist in 1990. No, they've never repeated that since — and note also that the shortlist hasn't always consistently been five titles either, but has also sometimes been three, four or six — but the article isn't making a special "preliminary longlist" exception for 1990, the source explicitly states that the committee just released a longer shortlist in 1990 than they have before or since. (See also the ReLit Awards: they're not veering back and forth between longlists in some years and shortlists in others either, they're only listing the shortlists and it's the award itself that varies the size of its shortlists to sometimes be longer or shorter than other years' shortlists are.)
 * And no, being longlisted for an award isn't necessarily a notability-clincher in and of itself anyway — but that's kind of beside the point, because if you've actually got 30 reliable sources you can show about her and her book, then she would get over WP:GNG anyway, and thus you wouldn't need an award (or even an award nomination) to make her notable. A writer's notability isn't necessarily contingent on actually having award wins or nominations under her belt, per se — winning a major literary award is obviously a strong notability claim for a writer, but it's not the only way a writer can clear the notability bar. If a writer without major awards can be shown to get over GNG on her sourceability, then she still gets over GNG whether she's got awards to show or not. And the same is true of Dyer and Kelly and Myers: depending on the longlist nomination as the notability claim in and of itself won't cut it per se, but if they make the shortlist when that gets released that will count for more (although the article would still have to be sourced to more than just one piece of technical verification of the shortlist itself), and even if they don't make the shortlist at all they can still be notable anyway if you can actually source them over GNG properly. You have shown a bit of a skewed understanding of what sources do or don't actually count toward GNG sometimes — like journalists whose only substantive non-primary source was an article in the real estate section of her own employer about her struggle to buy a house, and wasn't actually being covered in the context of her journalism — but if you can actually show the correct kind of sources to actually get a writer over GNG, then it doesn't actually matter if she's got awards or not.
 * I also fail to see how anything I said was "disrespectful" to your status as a longtime contributor; I'll acknowledge that my writing tone is pretty direct, but nothing I said was impolite or disrespectful at all. But you're still derailing the discussion by acknowledging that I'm probably correct that the article doesn't need to note the preliminary longlist at all, and then still veering off to justify the longlist on tangential grounds that are irrelevant to the question of whether the information is fundamentally relevant to the article or not. (Incidentally, I'd also invite you to go back and look at the table carefully to find the formatting error that you introduced, but that's not really central to whether the information belongs in the article or not either.) So, again: do you have a reason why the article needs to contain the preliminary longlist itself? Any other issue is irrelevant. This isn't about reference formatting, or about what writers you are or aren't allowed to work on in your sandbox — the only question here is "why does the preliminary longlist need to be in the article at all", and you haven't even really tried to answer that. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I finished starting draft stubs at User:Geo Swan/Ali Bryan, User:Geo Swan/Hadley Dyer, User:Geo Swan/Cathal Kelly, User:Geo Swan/Martin Myers I rewound the 2019 section.
 * I also added the missing descriptive title to the tables for the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.
 * Additional comments to follow... Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I also added the missing descriptive title to the tables for the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.
 * Additional comments to follow... Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Taj Mohammed and Nasrullah ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hezb-e_Islami_Gulbuddin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hezb-e_Islami_Gulbuddin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)