User talk:Elmidae/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Elmidae, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thalapathy 62

The film has not yet begun shooting, and will only do so at the end of this month, or early next month. As per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date". Hence, I have redirected it to AR Murugadoss. Please do not violate this policy. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

renewable energy editing clash

Concerning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_energy_industry&action=history : sorry. I am already on it. Give me some time, please. -- Kku (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I assume you will know better what goes where :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Olm & white vs caucasian

The name "human fish" for olms is clearly a reference to skin color and not cranial morphology. Thus white is the less ambiguous term, not Caucasian. Please stop reverting my edit.Zekelayla (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Zekelayla - the article White race does not deal with "people with pale skin", it deals with the racial concept of a "white race", which is a lot broader and more loaded. Caucasian race, in contrast, deals with concepts of physiognomy, morphology and appearance. Have a look at those pages please; the difference is pretty clear. It is thus misleading to link to white race article when talking about skin colour. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, as the articles make clear, "Caucasian/Caucasoid" in anthropology is "an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, over skin tone." emphasis mine. E.g. South Asians and Somalis have in various sources been included as Caucasoid. Additionally, "the term "Caucasian" has often been used in the United States in a different, social context to describe a group commonly called "white people"". "White" is thus the less ambiguous term. Anyways, I'm planning to edit it so neither term is used, which is probably better anyway.Zekelayla (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably better without a hyperlink. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

About Fix-It Felix Jr.

Fix-It Felix Jr., was originally intended to be only from the movie, but in reality, that is left behind, it actually exists, but it started as the Wreck-It Ralph promotion. Just people like you, deny the presence of the game in real life and not admit a related article, because you haven't seen or played it, I have played. It deserves to be, like the other games from the other movies.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8sssti_mCY&t=75s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I defend this article, because I have proof of it, and in the words of Jules Verne: "Everything that man imagines becomes a reality" and video games aren't the exception. Fix-It Felix Jr. must be in the Post-fictional category, Because it has been seen hundreds of times by many people who hadn't imagined that this game really existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Ofihombre - please sign your messages using four tildes ~~~~.)

I don't doubt it exists, in fact I'm sure it does. The question here is, is it notable in the sense that Wikipedia runs on? Which comes down to, has this thing (in itself, not as part of another topic, e.g. the movie) received substantial, impartial, 3rd party coverage from reliable sources not directly connected with it? (And BTW, YoutTube, Twitter and fan blogs are not reliable sources because they are crowdsourced.) That is what has to be shown at the deletion discussion page. Please make the case there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer review improvements

I read your reason behind undoing my edition. Then, in which article it should go?--Hienafant (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hienafant, this would fit well into Scholarly peer review, which treats the subject in much grater detail. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your insistence on use of the term “nigger toes”

Elmidae, I just noticed your edit with time stamp 15:20, 20 January 2018‎ in the revision history of the Brazil nut article. You used uncivil language, which demonstrates that you are an aggressive editor with an attitude of ownership. You initiated an edit war; one more revert will place you in direct violation of the WP:Three_Revert_Rule. Just so we’re clear with each other: absolutely nothing gives you the authority to tell me what I “bloody well can” or cannot do. You are advised to watch your tone.

I do not accept your opinions as the final ruling on this matter. Therefore, I will seek advice from other, more civil, contributors. Jam cpa (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jam cpa - I am fully entitled to remind you to observe WP:BRD (which, by the way, puts YOU on the wrong end of any incipient edit war in that instance). This is not a convent nor a kindergarten. If you are offended by "bloody well", you might rather want to spend your time scouring Wikipedia for offensive encyclopedic content to erase ...oh wait... In any case, keep your high dudgeon to yourself and go do something productive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

And there you go again with the condescending attitude. You bloodlessly well need to review the WP:CIVILITY guidelines, slowly and in full. And give me a break— you raised BRD defense only after you pushed yourself against the limit of the Three Revert Rule. Your time stamps reveal all: “Revert, Revert, Revert!” Then, on the Talk page, “Wait, Wait! Before we get into a revert war, everyone review BRD!!!!1!!1!” That’s just laughable. In response, I hereby grant you... what is the polar opposite of a Barnstar? A Pigpenstar? A Barnblackhole? You’ve earned it. Jam cpa (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Further self-righteous waffling along these lines will be deleted without comment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You undid my change, I don't know what to do now.

The information in the articles, Bhajji, Bhaji, and Pakoda are confusing and wrong. I tried to correct it myself, I didn't want to start a whole discussion over this, since the the article is about a relatively trivial thing. Could you help, if you have knowledge of the subject matter?

First, Bhajji and Pakoda are one thing, Bhaji is another thing. The three articles speak of 2 things, while confusing Bhaji with Bhajji, which are two different things.

Thanks! DistributorScientiae (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi DistributorScientiae, happy to help with technical stuff (I know nothing about the food item itself :p). Can you clarify first - how many articles do you want to end up with? Three (one each for Bhajji, Bhaji, and Pakoda), or two (one for Pakoda with Bhajji redirecting to it, and one for Bhaji)?

(In this regard, keep in mind that a full article needs a good number of references, which only Pakora has at this point - Bhaji has had none for ten years and would probably have been deleted by now if it was about some more critical topic). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There need to be two articles, and that would clean things up. I'm sure if I do it abruptly, someone will reverse it again. Otherwise, I would have constructed an intigrated 'Bhajji/Pakoda' article locally on my own editor, and then would have pasted it all in one go. Then I would make a 'Bhaji' stub. You got a workaround? DistributorScientiae (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

DistributorScientiae - OK, but let me check again about which content you mean. Do I understand correctly that you think the content at Bhaji actually is about bhajji; you would want it integrated with that of Pakora; and then make a new bhaji article?

If so, that seems straightforward. Currently there's an article Bhaji and a redirect Bhajji pointing at Bhaji. It looks as if you could just

a) change the redirect Bhajji to point at Pakora

b) then merge whatever content you want from Bhaji into Pakora. To make sure people can still access the page history of the old page, this requires leaving a few specific notices. The process is detailed at Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. Since you do not want to turn the old page Bhaji into a redirect but instead put new content there, you wouldn't do all of step 2 (place redirect to new page) BUT you would need to do the last thing of step 2 (leave editing summary noting the merge). Note step 4 - leave a note on the talk page as well.

c) then put new content (stub) at Bhaji.

So basically what you had in mind. The main issue before was that you copied the entirety of one article onto another one without leaving merge notices, which just makes page history disappear.

Let me know if there are any hitches. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved from user page

Hi, Elmidae

I have a one question. Why did you redirect Myanmar Women League and 2016-17 Myanmar Women League to Myanmar Football Federation? . Because you combined Women League and Football Federation. So, Please kindly remove this #redirect. If you need more information , i will tell you. And , 2017-18 Myanmar Women's League is start now. Thanks,

Hi Vilnae867 (please remember to sign your posts), the problem was that there seems to be no reliable coverage at all in the article. Facebook links certainly don't establish notability. That being said, I don't have a good overview of sports notability rules, and will therefore undo that redirect and leave it for others to decide. - I did nothing to that redirect, as you can see here [1]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi , Elmidae

Thanks for your removed. I know , Facebook links is not reliable. But in my country, the official website is not popular. So, I found sourse from Facebook,Magazine....

Response to your query about whether I'm being paid to contribute

Hello, Elmidae!

Thanks for checking my page, and flagging a potential problem.

I am a professional commissioning editor for Springer Nature, a scholarly publisher. Here's my professional profile: http://www.springer.com/psychology?SGWID=0-10126-19-1498049-0

I am not paid by anyone to do contribute to Wikipedia - it's entirely voluntary.

Let me know if you'd like any further information!

Thanks,

Replied on your talk page. Thanks! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your editing of my article

I was in the process of editing the Timeline of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy with names article when you knee-jerk edited it within minutes of my first edit going live; by doing so, it caused my second, completed version to be lost when I tried to save it.

So I had to do it over again.

Consider taking a moment and give people a chance to finish what they're doing, especially when it's before dawn on a Sunday. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 11:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

...well, apart from it not being before dawn on a Sunday morning where I am... the edit conflict interface, stupidly designed as it may be, should prevent any of that happening, so I am not sure what exactly you did to bobble your edits. Anyway, thanks for adding those references. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Gary Leach

Hi, I saw that you added the "unreferenced" tag to the article Gary Leach, which I have created as a stub. But can a page really be considered unreferenced if the external link is a reliable source that supports every sentence of an article? --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Newblackwhite - an external link is not a reference, as it generally only contains additional or supplementary information. If the material for that article comes from that source, then please do represent it as a reference - i.e., add <ref></ref> tags to the article and cite it there. But apart from that, the link given appears to be dead...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing out that the link was not working. Now I have fixed it. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Elmidae, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 500 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

		Geneva Drive
		For maintaining a streak of at least 50 reviews per week during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog drive, you are awarded the Geneva drive. Well done! Keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

		New Page Reaper
		For shepherding a significant number of appropriately bad new articles to the afterlife during the NPP New Year Backlog Drive (with a very good success rate). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Content copied from Wikia

Text on Wikia is licenced under CC-BY-SA-3.0 the same as here on WP so had there been attribution at Elliot Alderson there wouldn't be a copyvio. Due to the lack of attribution you were correct to remove it and request revdel but you might want to re-consider the warning you left on Wyce17's talk page? Rather than the full-blooded copyvio warning something more specific about the need to attribute CC-licenced text, as the issue is more what they didn't do rather than what they did do. Nthep (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Nthep - true, that wasn't really the suitable template at all... I'll fix it. Thanks for notifying. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've no opinion about whether there should be an article on the character or just a redirect :-) Nthep (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Unification movement

Thank you for your edits. I have started a talk page "Unification movement" for discussion and would appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PineSky (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Electric Cafe - En Vogue

Why did you remove the page and put it as a redirect, the album is avaiable for pre-order and new information had been released. i don't understand the point in removing the informations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockercar32 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rockercar32, I admit I overlooked the fact that it's already available for preorder, which does make the timing legit by our conventions. Apologies; reverted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dabs

Re this: you're right that it is the most common way for dab pages to start. But style consistency generally ranks lower than the need for a text to actually make sense. The first line of a dab page is a sentence fragment, and each entry is another fragment that completes it. A sentence like "Brohi may refer to an alternative spelling of Brahui" is nonsense. If you feel that the first line absolutely must have "refer to", then I don't have strong feelings about it, but you'll at least need to also rewrite the rest of the page. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala - I disagree that the standard phrasing does not make sense. The dab term does "refer" to the alternate spelling - just as it "refers" to the surname. Otherwise you would have to conclude that the second sentence is also grammatically wrong, and that phrasing is used on thousands of disambiguation pages. Generally, every article title in this encyclopedia is a term that can be considered to "be" the subject of the article, or to "refer" to it, and the latter happens to be the way it is normally phrased. - Otherwise no strong feelings either, so I'll leave that decision to you. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we do have different intuitions about English, but the logic doesn't go both ways as "to be" is the more generic term here: it's OK to say that "Brohi" is a surname (or a language, or an ethnic group) and it's simply that in these cases there's an equivalent expression "refer to" that is more precise and that is the one generally used. But in metalinguistic use, I don't think you can say that a given word ("Brohi") refers to a different word ("Brahui"). It refers to whatever the other word refers to, it simply is an alternative spelling of it. – Uanfala (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And about your edits at Northern Indic: first, if a page has been nominated for deletion, the deletion notice must stay on the page as long as the discussion is still open: that's how the deletion is advertised and it's an essential feature of the way deletion is handled on wikipedia. The second point is a bit more subtle: if a redirect has been nominated for deletion, it sometimes happens that in the discussion someone will propose turning it into a dab page. In such cases there needs to be a way for participants in the discussion to be able to see the proposed dab page, and they need to be able to view the redirect as it was when it got nominated, so that it's clear what is being discussed. The practice so far has been to draft dab pages below the redirect (and any other redirect-related content on the page). It does look inelegant, but it's the simplest way to do it that I know of, and it is what is normally being done. – Uanfala (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala - all right. Thanks for the patient explanations; dab minutiae ain't my bailiwick, rightly. NPR duty is certainly showing me some areas I hadn't dabbled in before :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

re:Wisdom books

Hi Elmidae, my thinking is simply that we need specific pages for the divisions of the Old Testament as distinct from those of the Tanakh for clarity; it’s all been a bit scattered up to now. I’ve started some pages for the historical, poetic books, wisdom and prophetical books of Christianity and edited the {{Old Testament}} template to link to these. The idea is simply that we have for example poetic books for the division and then Biblical poetry for the wider genre, and so wisdom books and Wisdom literature, as well as linking to these pages, but I think we do need some summary articles for the specific sections of the Old Testament as well as articles treating the broader topic. Gherkinmad (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Morning Gherkinmad - my reason for reverting to redirect was primarily that the new article contained hardly anything more as yet than the summary already present in the parent article, so it was only a content duplication. Some expansion would certainly be welcome there. But I would suggest only implementing a new article once there is sufficient material to distinguish it from the overall summary; or, possibly, moving most of the specific material out of Wisdom literature at the same time? Otherwise it may run the risk of getting reverted by someone else again. Cheers --

Deletion

Is there anything wrong with the Amos Crawley page I made? Martinc1994 (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martinc1994, nothing wrong with the page per se (i.e., it's well structured etc.), but there are doubts that the actor himself meets the notability requirements that Wikipedia maintains to determine whether there should be an article on a given topic or not. For people, this fundamentally means that there needs to be substantial coverage of the person themselves in reliable, verifiable and unconected sources; for an actor, this most frequently equates to news or journal articles that treat the actor themselves (not just the productions they worked in - notability is not inherited). My concern is that this cannot be demonstrated for Crawley. You are welcome to join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Crawley if you think and can demonstrate otherwise. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Something odd about the AfD for Terry Biviano

Something odd happened with the AfD for Terry Biviano. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terry_Biviano. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Gah. Thanks for noticing, Insertcleverphrasehere. It's rather annoying that the NPP script can't handle 2nd+ nominations. I'll sort it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Viaduct Basin

Forget it. I can't be bothered jumping thru hoops to get a trivial change of title accepted. Akld guy (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy - I'll put in the request for you, it's less hoopy than it looks like. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that rollback

Yes, that was in error. I have set up rollback to require confirmation on mobile devices, but this time it didn't let me cancel it. Sorry, and thanks for your understanding. Mduvekot (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Sebastian Zawadzki, Elmidae.

Unfortunately Primefac has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Huge chunk of copyvio material was removed, so I figured it would be best to be re-reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment on Primefac's talk page.

Primefac (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Rudra Kaushish, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Mi familia perfecta

According to you, the sources provided in the article are not reliable?. Did you take the time to see them?. The accounts of Instagram and Twitter are official accounts, although there were not many sources available with respect to the production, it was not until today that People en Español magazine published a note about the telenovela.--Philip J Fry / talk 13:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:TWITTER, an article should not be based primarily on even "official" Twitter/Instagram messages (and those were the only sources purportedly containg that information). The journal is certainly a better source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Elmidae. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wei Dai's deletion

Hi Elmidae, you flagged Wei Dai for deletion, we left some comments on the deletion request, please see if it resolves your concern. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wei Dai

-- Xinbenlv (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That'll be decided on the AfD page, not here :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I know, but if you are convinced, you can feel free to leave comments to reflect that. If you are not convinced, i also welcome further follow up questions, at the end of day we are both contributing to the quality of wikipedia, right? Xinbenlv (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Casper: Friends Around the World

I've moved this to draft space to allow the authors time to find reliable sources for it while it's being created. I notice from the page history that you have recently contributed to it. It would be very helpful if you could continue to work on sourcing the page, after which you, or any of the other editors working on the page can resubmit it for review. Useful info regarding this process has been added to the top of the page. If you were reviewing the page or were tagging it for further editing but not actually contributing please feel free to disregard this message :). Thanks so much for your contributions. Edaham (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I was indeed merely reviewing it. Moving to draft was probably a good decision - I'm sure there are sources, they just have to go the trouble to collect them. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Marianne Hauser

Elmidae, thank you for reviewing Marianne Hauser. Much appreciated.Buzzcallaway (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Result!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil courage - The result was keep.

I only came across civil courage (at the last moment in that AfD) because User:DPL bot had flagged it for improperly linking to a DAB page.

Editors who nominate articles for deletion because the sources are in furrin and they can't be bothered to read/don't know how to read/don't know how to search for them annoy the bejasus out of me.

We seem to have similar opinions about the quality of sourcing in dewiki. IMO it's one of the worst of the Latin/Cyrillic/Greek alphabet Wikis for that.

(Higher up on your talk page, there's a discussion about DAB pages. No-one is infallible; but I've looked at north of 50,000 of them, have edited and created many, and sleep with WP:MOSDAB under my pillow. Feel free to {{ping}} me any time.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Narky Blert - I'm glad this swung round in the end, it would have felt rather parochial to consign the article to oblivion because of language issues. Now something has to be done to actually bring it to an acceptable state. I'll see if I can at least extract some theoretical basics from the review articles and shore it up a little. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Review

Hi there, thanks very much for your suggestions for my Predation Risk Allocation Hypothesis article. It was very helpful, I will be sure to make the appropriate changes. Nlstudent18 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Hi Elmidae, I am discussing your AofD approach on WP:ANI Xinbenlv (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Transgender elected officials

Would you mind reviewing Transgender elected officials? Let me know what else needs work, and delete tags if warranted? Gstridsigne (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gstridsigne, I'm not sure I am the right person for the job :) It's really not my area of expertise. I did remove the orphan and lede tags, for what it's worth, since both issues have been addressed. (But I would suggest that the lede needs some additional references for the statements made there; that's normally not necessary for a lede because it summarizes already referenced article text, but here it has more the form of an introduction making new statements.)

The AfD seems to come out as a clear Keep and should be closed in a bit, that will take care of that tag. Then further improvements can be hashed out on the talk page; seems plenty of editors have ideas about how the list can be improved. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Book of Ryan redirect

You reversed my recent action at Book of Ryan without investigating the article's background or the history of the original redirect. There is no need to tell me to resist temptations without investigating the history of my own actions with the support of other editors. I created the original redirect myself on March 21 per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Ryan. However, today a user contacted me and the other voter in the AfD with evidence that the album has been confirmed for release, and that information is in reliable sources that you apparently did not investigate before reversing my action. See also Talk:Book of Ryan and User talk:Sergecross73 (topic #6). The album's article now needs expansion with recent sources and I have instructed the interested User:Abhinav0908 to do so. He/she simply has not gotten to it yet. Your action on the article will be reversed but I will add a "refimprove" tag and may add the sources myself if User:Abhinav0908 can't get to it soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds suitable. A sensible precaution in these cases is to place {{Under construction}} on the page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Austronesian Hypothesis

Hi and thank you for creating a list of suggested improvements to the article that you posted at User talk:Onikjeh. There are two things that I'm going to take issue with. First of all, formatting or layout issues like the absence of a lede paragraph or categories are not grounds for moving articles into the draft space. Please don't do that unless there are serious issues with the content or the sourcing. Second, inline citations are usually preferable, but again, there is no requirement for articles to use inline referencing. Also, please note that in this case the article does have inline references, they're simply not formatted using <ref>...</ref> tags. – Uanfala (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, I wouldn't worry too much about curating the article at this stage: it appears to be part of a student project involving several related articles, and it's probably wiser to wait until that is complete. – Uanfala (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala, with WikiEd productions I tend to feel that draftifying is actually a benefit for the author - it prevents the article from being savaged in mainspace, which is a perennial BITE issue with student productions; and a badly formatted article usually also shows that the student didn't make use of the instruction material, thus sending it back to base is also in the interest of the course instructors. However, I agree that draftifying under these circumstances technically runs counter the letter of the law, and stating formatting "niceties" as requirements isn't correct either. Fair enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Draftifying it in the first place was understandable, but I think moving it back after the creator objected is rather against the spirit of WP:BRD and WP:EW. As NPPers we need to avoid giving the impression that we have some special authority to "approve" articles. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Right you are. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Elmidae, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Jesse Kanda

Hey! Saw you changed the article I was working on back to redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Kanda . Just wondering if there is anything I can do to demonstrate independent notoriety more? I'm pretty sure Kanda is an influential artist in his own right since almost all of Arca's visual material comes from Kanda?

When you changed it the article was still a bit of a mess that's totally my fault - I will use the sandbox next time! Best wishes,

Bigoldnance (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bigoldnance, the article certainly looks well-developed now, but I'm honestly not sure how to assess Kanda's notability - whether he clears our WP:NARTIST thresholds or not. Chances are he does, but I'll be more comfortable leaving that assessment to others, and just keeping my fingers off for the moment ;) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

CART Fury

Hello. Game is entitled "CART Fury Championship Racing", not "CART Fury". Eurohunter (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: - okay - I swapped the titles by page move. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Orayiram Kinakkalal Plot Summary

I don't think it is a bad machine translation. It reads like marketing buzzspeak. I agree with you that it needed to be taken out, but I think it was ripped off from the advance publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - then these guys are not well served by the English section of their publicity machinery :p Well, seems headed for oblivion on grounds of article duplication now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

True. The English that is taught in Indian high schools appears to be of very inconsistent quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No Phun Intended

I do realise that a past discussion has gone on about this album, but I believe that it is notable enough to have its own page. Its just given people more info about specifically the album. Redirecting the page to Tyler Joseph to read a two sentence explanation isn't as good as reading a full article. Sorry if I seem pushy and a little angry, butnim not trying to be. Thanks, StarlightStratosphere StarlightStratosphere (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@StarlightStratosphere: - unfortunately, believing that something is notable is not sufficient; you have to demonstrate it via referenced sources. In this case, the specific notability hurdles to overcome are given at WP:NALBUM. It generally comes down to a) multiple in-depth reviews and/or b) substantial charting success. If neither can be shown for this album, then I'm afraid it is just not eligible for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Vulnerable water Review

Thank you very much for your comment. I'm struggling linking my article so that it appears on Google for instance. I don't understand why it turns out to be an orphan article. Can you help me please? J rchand (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi J rchand - regarding orphan status, that is a manually applied tag that talks about whether the article has been webbed into Wikipedia's own meta-structure - the network of hyperlinks that enables readers to hop from one article to the next. This tag has to be removed by an editor if it no longer applies. Consequently I have removed it here, as at least one other article links to Vulnerable waters (Riparian zone). You can check that under the "What links here" option under "Tools" on the left. However, it would be desirable if there were more links than that, otherwise the article is just going to be plain hard to find apart from typing in the exact search term. I suggest you do a stroll around articles with related topics and check whether you can find suitable locations to insert a wikilink to Vulnerable waters. A good location is often the "See also" section of such articles.

Regarding indexing by Google, that has nothing to do with such within-WP linking, and is outside our control; Google periodically sends round an indexer bot (a "spider") that grabs relevant articles, but that is on their own schedule (although quite rapid for Wikipedia, generally happens within a few days at the latest). The one thing that can prevent this indexing is if the article has not been reviewed yet, but yours has, and the 'bot indexing' flag is set. So, patience; Google will eventually do its thing.

Hope this helps! Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Neutron episodes

I thought you should be aware that you probably should add the pages for the Jimmy Neutron and Planet Sheen cartoons to your watchlist if they aren't already, as well as pages like the one for "List of Planet Sheen episodes". The anonymous user with the IP that starts with 60 has been hitting the Planet Sheen Wiki for over a month, interfering with the list of episodes on that wiki. It doesn't have an admin, so at the moment, I can only revert the edits as they happen. The frequency at which they are editing indicates they may perform similarly on Wikipedia. −RRabbit42 (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Appeal

Dear Admin, I was merely preserving SIM University's contents which was previously under Singapore Institute of Management and a private university. SIM University was later acquired by the government, renamed and restructured into SUSS. This case was similar to Nanyang University prior to its merger with University of Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamachinaman (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iamachinaman:, I'm not an admin. I'm giving up on this knot of institute name changes for now; maybe someone else will have better input. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ho-Wang Lee

regarding the page Ho-Wang Lee - I didn't actually blank the page. The last person to edit it prior to my review had already edited the page such that all that remained was the PROD template. I was therefore simply swapping the template. I did check the history and apparently there had been some previous fracas as to whether or not a redirect was required. CSD seemed the appropriate option, but I'll leave as is if you think restoring it as a redirect is better. Edaham (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: yes, I saw that - my comment was targetted at the original "blanker", who did remove the actual redirect when putting on his deletion nomination [2]. Wrong approach from their end, AFAIK - the redirect should stay in place and the redirect for deletion template added, and I don't think that redirect would be deleted in any subsequent RfD discussion. The entire "redirect to/from related topic" concept seems a little hard to swallow for some editors :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Good call, thanks! Have a good one, happy editing :) Edaham (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Silver Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2000 new page reviews in the last year, thank you very much for your help at New Pages Patrol! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Tartu School of Composition

Hi!

You re-redirected Tartu School of Composition to Heino Eller Tartu Music College, but the two aren't really the same thing at all - I originally split them because the page for the College was pretty much 100% for the composition school (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heino_Eller_Tartu_Music_College&type=revision&diff=828708284&oldid=802388535), which made little sense. It might be that neither is relevant enough for enwiki, but as the main music school in the second biggest city in Estonia and one of the main composition schools in Estonia, I'd think they are. Since you added a redirect, do you think there should be a subsection for the composition school under the College page then? While I'm not sure it makes sense, it might be better than just dropping the info about the school of composition completely as you currently did. --Reosarevok (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Reosarevok, covering the composition school in a section of the article on the college seems like a reasonable setup to me. The main issue here being that we require sufficient sourcing for either topic. There seems to be okay sourcing for the college (even if it's just one publication, it's quite an extensive one), but nothing was presented for the composition school. While some sourcing is required for that in any case (I hope you can find some?), there's less trouble to be expected from having a lightly-sourced topic treated as a subsection of a better-sourced topic, than separately. If you can find sufficient sourcing and content to spin off the school article on its own, go for it, naturally :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

2021 Jeux de la Francophonie

There is enough info for a stub. See also articles for other future games such as 2022 Commonwealth Games and even 2030 Commonwealth Games. If you wish to delete please move an AfD. Nixon Now (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I see we have a bit of a bad habit of crystal-balling sports events in the far future. Can't argue with that, I guess :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Heywood Community School

You redirected a page I had, essentially removing it on the basis of lack of notability, which is fine I suppose but the page you redirected to is different how? ProfPixels (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@ProfPixels: I agree that The Forest High School, Cinderford doesn't make a good case for notability either, but it at least makes a reasonable stab at presenting sourced and structured information. Basically, if notability is not readily discerned but there is sufficient material for an articles, articles tend to go to the jury; if there is an unsourced stub of unclear notability, it will get redirected until someone puts in the time to expand it. I would argue that Forest High School should be removed as well, but it would take some arguing; in the case of the Heywood Community School stub, it's a much clearer decision because of lack of sources and write-up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

your deletion about Jeju oreum article

I found that you removed the part of 'Values of jeju Oreum' again. I wrote the value which Jeju Oreum has, not for advertisement. That context is also not my opinion, but that of expert. It is from book and scientific treatise (the study of jeju oreum) which have public confidence. (please see the references) And you said it is non-neutral. Do you mean the 'value' should not be written because it is only a positive things? If you think it is a matter of style of sentences(essay-style), then it is better to change those things, not to delete it.--Yeon So Jeong (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yeon So Jeong: the problem is with both content and style, and specifically the combination used (which, BTW, if it is a direct translation of an existing text, is not acceptable under WP copyright guidelines).

This is an encyclopedia and it does not deal in "values"; we don't make statements in the enyclopedia's voice that proclaim "this thing has a value". It could under some circumstances be reported that x is considered to have values, but then that must be a prominent, generally-held, and relevant position on x, and not just the structure that either you or the author of one specific publication has chosen. This being an article about a geographic area, it should read like an article about a geographic area, and not like an essay on how to disaggregate it into "values".

Notice, for example, how all the "ecological value" section does is broadly defining biological diversity, and then stating that the area has that quality. The exact same thing could be stated about any natural area, and thus it is never stated in articles, as a commonplace. What is happening here is making a point in an argument (and a superfluous, or merely promotional, point at that), not reporting encyclopedic facts. The same is true for the other four sections as well. The only part that contains some salvageable material appears to be "geographical value", because it reports that the area has an unusual geology that is of interest for volcanological studies. As such, I have integrated some of it into the "Formation" section. Apart from that, there is simply no encyclopedic value in this text. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)