User talk:Nickw25

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Nickw25! Thank you for your contributions. I am Kerry Raymond and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Kerry (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Qantas and notability
Just noticed your edit on Qantas and your edit summary. Just FYI, notability is only an issue in relation to whether a topic should have an article (see Notability) but it is not a criteria for the contents of an article. There are relatively few guidelines in practice about what is allowed as content of an article, in fact we tend only to say what is NOT acceptable as content and often in fairly generic ways (see List of policies). Of course given the breadth of articles on Wikipedia, biographies to maths theorems, it is hard to have standard rules about what content is/isn't allowed. Having said that, some WikiProjects have come up with various expectations of what should and to some extent should not be in articles in a particular topic area. But the rest of the time we fall back on the need to be "encyclopedic" (whatever exactly that means). I doubt there is any traditional encyclopedia that has articles on every Pokemon character and every episode of Senfield, so I think Wikipedia has long ago abandoned its alignment with a traditional encyclopedia (which was often limited in length by the physical bulk and cost trade-offs), see WP:NOTPAPER. So should we discuss Qantas apps on the Qantas page? Who knows? If we want to discuss Qantas apps, then the Qantas article is probably the best place for it. The information that was in the article about the apps was perhaps overly detailed, but equally if someone started an article Qantas apps, then that level of content would be quite acceptable. These matters tend to be resolved article by article through consensus on the Talk page.

But, having said all of that, deleting stuff never wins you friends on Wikipedia. Someone wrote it, and they thought it mattered. If they are still around, they might start an argument with you right now, or delete something you write later (tit for tat), or they might sulk and give up on Wikipedia or something else. But it rarely creates happiness. So as a new user, I'd be inclined to suggest you add or improve articles rather than delete stuff. With Wikipedia, you have to choose your battles. You have to learn to say to yourself "well, I wouldn't have written that, but I don't really have a policy reason to object to it, so I'll just shrug and move on". Even having been around a long time, I try to stick with the rule that if it's verified and is not going to mislead or misinform the reader, then it can stay. Readers are quite capable of skipping sections that don't interest them (and eye tracking studies show that most of them do only read some sections of articles). I'm not saying to you to restore the apps into the Qantas article (I'm shrugging and moving on either way), I'm just offering the advice to think twice before deleting stuff. Kerry (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Kerry for the input and feedback. I did make that edit knowing there was a possibility it could get reverted, and was happy to leave it be if it was. It wasn't entirely random, I have been watching that edit log of the Q page for a while to see what tends to get reverted or disputed as there are sections of that article kept quite current. I'd also tested the waters with some more routine edits, posted a list of things to possibly fix on the talk page over a year ago when the article had the cleanup notice on it (or a notice that stated something along the lines that the article contained too much trivia and needed to be more general) that didn't get any comments - which I took as a sign of people's level of interest .. granted, that particular change wasn't on my list. I'd also checked some other airline articles first to see if that degree of detail tends to be maintained across airline articles. Although all that said I do take the point and appreciate your time in providing the feedback. Nickw25 (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season 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/List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season 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. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)