This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Bob Wong (ecologist) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
As the "(biologist)" article was in mainspace first, that's the one which should continue to exist. If the new one at "(ecologist)" has content which isn't in that one, it should be merged ... yes, I've reverted my initial CSD-A10 and changed it to a merge.
If someone had added the necessary hatnote at Bob Wong when the first disambiguated-title article was moved into mainspace, it might have saved some of this confusion. I've added that hatnote now. Perhaps it needs to be added to the AfC protocol: "if you are moving an article with a disambiguated title into mainspace, please make sure to link it from the base title, by a hatnote or disambiguation page entry as appropriate." PamD 13:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Well spotted!! I wonder why that happened. Simple mistake possibly. I don't think that other article is up to much. I've taken across the publication section. I guess the other article can go. scope_creepTalk 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ::@PamD: and scope_creep, this was my very early days of work and might have made unintentional mistakes. Sorry for all this trouble. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per discussion at Talk:Bob Wong (biologist): merge the small amount of extra content from this IP-created article into the article which was created slightly later but has substantially more content. Leave the "(biologist)" title as a redirect, because its history will contain the acknowledgement of the IP and the later editors who worked on the article. PamD 23:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've just found Draft:Bob B.M. Wong (started on 2 Feb by an editor with no other edits before or since), while creating redirects. Something curious is going on here - three drafts created by SPAs. I'm not sure that he's really notable, but he's obviously got a lot of off-wiki support. PamD 10:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Unbelievable, it's turning the place into a circus. He is notable, i.e. more than 7 papers with more than 100 citations. If he wasn't notable, I would try and delete it for wasting everybody's time. I think what has happened, he is paid to get the article created, and there has been a mixup/disagreement with his supplier as the first version was sent back to Afc, not long ago. Possibly another supplier stepped in. I'm surmising it, but these do happen and I've seen this pattern in the past, and it is all too familiar. scope_creepTalk 15:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I wondered whether either (a)word had gone round in his lab that he ought to have an article and a few colleagues/students had all independently had a go, or (b)he was part of an LGBT-scientist-awareness campaign, or indeed an Australian-scientist-editathon? I wonder if there was a flurry of other gay or Australian scientist articles started by newbie editors in early February? And whether there are quadruplicate etc drafts yet undiscovered under other variant titles? PamD 15:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Yip, could be. That could be closer to the truth. Do you know that some editathons that were on during that period? It is not something I have much experience with at all. Nor on the awareness stuff. You could ask the editors, I suppose. It could be a simple mistake. Certainly, it is not beyond the bounds of reality that several of them decided to create it and never communicated it, what with life, holidays, covid getting in the way. I will take a look over the next couple of weeks, see if I can spot anything else. I know there were a lot of doubles showing in the last year, but it seems to have died down a bit. A wee chat is needed. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
