User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2022/August

Holland Business College
This I at first placed on the talk page of the article on George Alderink. On further reflection I decided this might need wider notice. Do we know anything about Holland Business College. I think we have given up on believing every tertiary institution of learning is notable, but I am wondering if it might be possible to find some information and place it somewhere. Epsecially if it was renamed or merged in to some other institution later. Alternatively maybe we need a good artilce on Business colleges in the United States in the early 20th-century or some similar topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC) John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Negative effects of super fast creation of stubs
I think some of the discussion of mass creation of stubs misses analyzing why it is so detrimental. One would think, between Olympedia and Wikipedia, that Wikipedia would have broad articles covering the whole lives of the subjects more, and Olympedia would more narrowly focus on a person's participation in the Olympics. At least in the case of some articles I have seen this would be wrong. There are some articles where Wikipedia literally just says the person competed in such and such an Olympics, with everything else known being nationality, birth year and death year. The Olympedian article in its 1 paragraph on the person managed to tell us what university the person got his degree from, that he was involved in an intercollegiate sport there, that he was involved in intercollegiate sports with the New York Athletic club, and that he retired from the army with the rank of colonel. In the specific example I am thinking of even the Olympedia article just mentions intercollegiate sports competition and graduation from Cornell in 1911, New York Athletic Club activities from 1914-1917, and participation in the 1924 Olympics. The Olympedia article is so lightly sourced (with sources opague to us) that it neglects to tell us what years this man was in the army, including neglecting to tell us if he was deployed in WWI (any possibly in WWII), or to even give us a hint if he may have had another career after leaving the army. While I have one specific example in mind, I have seen this happen multiple times. So Wikipedia ends up being more olympics focused (not just sports focused, but olympics focused) than Olympedia. Having articles created by article creators who focus extremely narrowly on the life of someone who was pretty broad is in some ways inevitable. Sources people use may mention someone was a member of a state legislature, without bothering to tell much about their career before they made that office, which may well be such it is worth detailing in an article we create on them. While it would be nice if people did a broad review of someones life before creating an article on them, if you have multiple sources that discuss a women a state legislator, and do not bother much with anything else in her life, focusing on that may make sense in creating the article. The woman in question may have been a journalist with important publications for the state in question for years before coming to office, maybe not at a level that would pass notability, but details do not have to reach notability level to put in a biography. I am thinking we need to find ways to encourage more broad source review before starting articles, even on people who clearly meet notability guidelines. However that is not the problem here. It is that the sources being used are too narrowly focused on the life of the olympic sportsperson, it is that some editors when they use the Olympedia source to create an entry in Wikipedia, only bother including those things that relate to olympic action. This is a major problem, and it is a problem in thousands if not tens of thousands of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

1894 births
Category:1894 births which I am about to start reviwing has 5,587 entries at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that I have finished the review the category has 5,487 entries. So it has dropped exactly 100.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:1893 births
Category:1893 births which I am about to review currently has 5,425 entries in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The category now has 4,524 articles. I am about to begin to review it more. I have been mainly looking at other categories and other things over the last couple of days, and had not completed 1894 when I started this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Male long jumpers of the Russian Empire


A tag has been placed on Category:Male long jumpers of the Russian Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed
An arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
 * is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect.
 * is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior.
 * Lugnuts is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) creating articles that comprise less than 500 words, including converting redirects into articles.
 * Lugnuts is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
 * is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
 * The Arbitration Committee requests comment from the community on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 22:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: