User talk:Nick Number/Archive 9

Argentine writers
Under duplicate categorization rules, if a person is already in a subcategory of, such as or , then they don't go in the parent "writers" category at the same time. They're already part of it by virtue of their inclusion in a subcategory, so they don't need to be directly filed in subcategories and parent categories at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but how does that apply to these three articles in particular? Syria Poletti isn't in any other 20th-century categories, and Matilde Sánchez and Hebe Uhart are only in Category:20th-century Argentine women writers, which is non-diffusing. Per WP:DUPCAT, they shouldn't be removed based on that. Nick Number (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be contrary, but I'm still not understanding this. Being in 21st-century Argentine short story writers puts her in 21st-century Argentine writers, but what puts her in 20th-century Argentine writers? She's published works in both centuries. Nick Number (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Miscounting WiR articles
Hallo Nick, I think you've already earned the "20 articles" award - you've listed two articles as your 5th, both María Sáez de Vernet and Viviana Gorbato (or was that an insurance in case the AfD managed to remove the former?). I noticed because when I added my own 4th article there were as many 5ths as 4ths, which seemed odd as I hadn't done a 5th! Pam D  14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not counting the former, just to err on the side of caution. I had marked it out with, but apparently that got removed at some point. Anyway, thank you for noticing and being on top of things. Nick Number (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

D2
Hi, I see you reverted and I don't understand why. There is no article for the band in the english wikipedia, but there is one in the bulgarian and in the romanian ones. I don't know what you mean by the article being deleted. Martinkunev (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you browse to D2 (band), you'll see a notice that the article was deleted in 2006, with a link to this deletion discussion. I don't know what the previous content of the article was, but evidently it didn't establish the band's notability. Rather than adding the entry back to the disambiguation page immediately, it would be best to recreate the article, being sure to include reliable sources to ensure that it meets notability guidelines. Nick Number (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. This was 12 years ago and I would argue the reason for deletion (notability) is no longer valid. Moreover, there are other links to non-existing articles which are less notable than this one. The fact that the article doesn't exist is not a reason to not link to it. I would also argue that deleting the link is counterproductive - it doesn't improve wikipedia in any way. In this instance, what it does is waste editors' time and discourage them from contributing.
 * I hear what you're saying, but this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case. I took a look at the Romanian and Bulgarian articles. From what I can tell, without reading either language, the former has almost no content, and the latter doesn't have the strongest sourcing. Several of the references link to the band's own website or to interviews. I don't see any that clearly establish that the band meets any of the notability criteria. If you could create even a short stub article at D2 (band) with links to a couple of reliable sources that establish at least one of the criteria, that would be the best way to establish notability. Nick Number (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar! For you!

 * Whee, thank you. I don't really have any special tricks beyond just getting in a groove and repeating the same process until it's second nature. Nick Number (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Laurels for the WiR August 2018 Monthly achievement initiative
Congratulations, Nick, on creating 70 women's biographies under the August Monthly achievement initiative. As the most successful registered member of Women in Red, you have earned the award for:

Please feel free to add the box to your user page. Congratulations!
 * (You have no doubt noticed that completed 104 new biographies, all of which I added to the lists on his behalf. While he supports Women in Red, Oceanh prefers to concentrate on writing articles rather than on participating in wikiprojects.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I had noticed Oceanh's name wasn't on the participants list, but I didn't know until this day that it was Barzini all along you adding the entries to the leaderboard. Wow, this is weird. We can't both have the most. Now I don't know what to think. Nick Number (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is really awkward. Maybe 104 stubs don't represent the same thing as 70 start- and C-class articles, and Oceanh wasn't officially a participant, but it doesn't feel right to say I had the most when the leaderboard says 104-70. You meant well, but it would have been better not to put entries on the list on someone else's behalf, and to have instead given them a barnstar at the end for making a big contribution that wasn't part of the contest. Nick Number (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this has been resolved successfully. Let's not complicate things.--Ipigott (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, may feel like it's resolved. I still don't know how to feel. Nick Number (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've decided to keep the userbox, as I created the most biographies under the rules as they were initially established. I still don't know why you posted articles for someone who wasn't participating. This makes it look like I finished second, though I'm getting the prize for first, and Oceanh gets a prize, but not the prize they would have earned if they were playing, which they weren't. It's a real dog's breakfast of a finish. Nick Number (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry you feel that way about it. I thought you made a fantastic contribution, translating lots of lengthy articles from Spanish. It was also good to see your focus on writers, coinciding with one of the priorities of the month. While most of your biographies were Start class or higher, most of Oceanh's were fairly short stubs on sports people, . If it's any consolation, during the World Contest last November, I tried to encourage to participate by listing his articles in much the same way as with Oceanh. I was very happy with the result. The main purpose of these initiatives is of course to encourage far better coverage of women on Wikipedia. Thanks to the enthusiasm you and many others demonstrated in August, I think we are moving in the right direction. As someone who also creates English versions of articles from other language versions of Wikipedia, I must say I am enormously impressed by the speed and accuracy of your translations. Your translations are certainly making an impact. I hope you will continue to translate women's biographies in the future too. You have probably noticed that one of the September priorities is Hispanic women.  By the way, I noticed you added two articles under "Fifth new biography" -- so you actually created 71, not 70. (You could add one of them under "71st new biography" if you wish.) I hope these explanations show that you really deserved the award.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IS-3 (tank)
Hello Nick Number,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged IS-3 (tank) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  TT me 00:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no stake in this, as I just created it as a redirect. If the current content is a copyvio, I would recommend restoring it to its August 4, 2016 revision and requesting revision deletion for everything newer. Nick Number (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

IP autoblock
The blocked user Northshoreweb hasn't edited since 2011. I've been able to edit fine from here until yesterday, so I don't know why this block is showing up now. It's possible that the company's external IP changed to something that was previously blocked, but I haven't heard anything from the network team about it. If someone making bad edits from this IP, I have access to the proxy here to see who's doing it. I'm available on the Wikipedia Discord server for discussion if necessary. Nick Number (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I will see if I can track down and educate the culprit. Nick Number (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * One question – can the Northshoreweb user log in to post the unblock-spamun tag to their talk page? Or will that trigger the IP block again? If so, should they use UTRS? Nick Number (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See Autoblock - It's not the most well explained page here, since the autoblock system has all set up by the software developers, I suspect we don't get the full story - case of WP:BEANS! Ron h jones (Talk) 00:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ready for Love
A recent edit to Ready for Love removed the links to all the artists in the songs section. What is customary in this regard?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. Per MOS:DABENTRY, each entry should contain exactly one blue link. Linking to the artists isn't necessary if the song or album is linked. Nick Number (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Mmm...pie. Nick Number (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Your creation of articles like Nidia Morrell--This might help you!
I do assessment for WP:WOMSCI and I noticed that you produce quite a few articles. They're good stuff, content-wise, but it would be very helpful to both of us if you tried User:Evad37/rater. It's an assessment userscript which is actively updated, and it should help you fill out the fields and parameters for WikiProject banners much more easily than doing it by hand. It lets you search for them, so it should make it much easier to work with projects you are unfamiliar with. It also offers predictions of article quality by ORES.

If you find that a little intimidating, I have prepared a (draft) guide. I recommend you skim through the official documentation as well. If you have any questions, Evad37 is away but I have used this tool for thousands of articles and I can likely answer them. Good luck and happy editing! Prometheus720 (talk) 12:09 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep it in mind, but I don't see that this would have much of a benefit for me. Despite writing and using scripts extensively in my professional life, I find it more satisfying to do Wikipedia editing tasks manually. Adding project banners hasn't been particularly taxing. I frankly don't care for the article rating system, and in any case would avoid rating articles that I created. Nick Number (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Soft drug
I just wanted to let you know that I have converted Soft drug back into a disambiguation page. There are actually three articles that need to be disambiguated. In pharmaceuticals, the concept of a soft drug is most commonly applied to the topic discussed at retrometabolic drug design. And although the term "soft drug" isn't currently used at prodrug, it is sometimes used in the older scientific literature regarding prodrugs. So I think a disambiguation page makes sense in this case. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Under MOS:DABMENTION, I'd tend to oppose including prodrug unless some language were added to that article mentioning the term. But I don't have strong feelings about it. Nick Number (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it and doing a bit of research, I think you're right about no disambig page being needed. The prodrug meaning of the term "soft drug" is archaic and non-notable and not worth mentioning. But the concept of a soft drug in pharmaceuticals is notable in the sense that it is described at retrometabolic drug design.  So I have restored your redirect at soft drug and changed the hatnote at that article to point to retrometabolic drug design.  Regards,  -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, that works for me. Thanks. Nick Number (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What is correct
Today, I noticed Attia, Attias and Atia existed, but Atias did not exist so I created it. I also tried to cross link with hatnotes Attea, Atea and Ateas. Then I stumbled on the unified Atiyah page. Should, the latter be split or some of the former merged?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having a very busy week, so it will be a little while before I can dig into these. From my initial look, they mostly seem ok, and Atiyah should possibly be converted into an anthroponymy page with its non-name entries split to a dab. Attie is the only one of the other names with significant overlap. If it's etymologically identical to Atiyah then its name entries could be split to there. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make that call. Nick Number (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found some time. I think they're pretty good now. Nick Number (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier
Thank you for asking: I meant redundant with the DOI. See User_talk:Citation_bot. Nemo 17:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did catch on a couple of minutes later. After reflecting on it and reading that thread, I don't think I agree with the practice. The url= parameter shouldn't contain a doi URL, but it does seem useful to point to other, non-paywalled locations, and to retain the original URL and access-date for verifiability. However I don't feel strongly enough about it to make a fuss. Nick Number (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can visit the help desk. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm well aware of MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. Jewelery is not an accepted spelling in any variety of English that I'm aware of. In this case I did choose the wrong variant to correct it to. I've just changed it to the Commonwealth spelling, jewellery. Nick Number (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you and regards. David J Johnson (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for María José Cristerna
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Date formats
You'll have to raise that with the script people... GiantSnowman 14:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Awesome, thank you, I love these things. Barnstars I mean, but links too. Nick Number (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Marta Feuchtwanger
Thank you for thanking me. If you would like to try the "correct typos in one click" gadget (kudos to User:Uziel302 for patenting the tool), here is a link:


 * Correct typos in one click

Please note that you have to add "importScript('User:Uziel302/typo.js');" to your Special:MyPage/common.js page, and hard refresh in order for the tool to function properly. And if you manage to fix all the typos on this page, then there are 19 more to go! (under "Additional Lists"). 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you (for thanking for thanking...), but while I make a lot of use of scripts at work, I find it more satisfying here to make granular, manual changes. Nick Number (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Gloria Ana Chevesich
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Corto Maltese (DC Comics)


The article Corto Maltese (DC Comics) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication this fictional location passes GNG/WP:NFICTION/WP:PLOT. Primary sources only, no real world significance, BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a plot summary."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I created this as a redirect back in 2012 and have barely had any part in expanding it. I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but if it is deemed non-notable, I'd recommend changing it back to a redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Nick Number (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the redirect, with a comment mentioning the previous deletions and warning against changing it back to an article unless there are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Nick Number (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Section
I like your edit summary on Quarter section. Wikiception? :P Benny White (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps some future editor will come along and tag it . Nick Number (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes! Benny White (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth
Were did you get the date of birth?

It is not in the source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * from the infobox. If you think it's contentious, feel free to remove it from both places. Nick Number (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah see it now. Yah no ref in either spot. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)