Archives |
A thought on PRODs.
I'm not here to tell you how to go about your business, but I think a lot of these one-shot shows built around a reasonably notable host/star could more easily be merged/redirected to the article on that person. I am specifically thinking here about Elvira's Halloween Special (which I have proposed to redirect to Cassandra Peterson#Filmography), and Capitol Gains (which I have proposed to merge to Peter Barnes (journalist)). PROD and AFD can invite an almost instinctive opposition based on the sheer desire to keep things in the encyclopedia. Merge proposals, and perhaps even redirect proposals, I think, do not, since they are more about moving content around than about eliminating it. BD2412 T 22:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm always gunshy on redirects because I've had way too many instances of people reverting them literally less than two seconds after I make them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well if you do it speedily, yes. However, if you put {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} templates on the respective articles, and open a talk page discussion proposing the merge (with more or less the same rationale as you would put into a deletion discussion), then wait a week or so, you can then accurately say that you made the proposal and no one contested it. I generally frame merge proposals for things like this along the lines of a merge until additional content develops to justify breaking out again, which I think is a particurly strong position to take, since it's not absolute. BD2412 T 22:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Too many proposed deletions and AfD nominations. Canvassing.
Hi TenPoundHammer. According to this contributions link, between 12 May 2022 and 30 May 2022, you nominated 637 articles for proposed deletion (based on a search of "Notification: proposed deletion"). In the same time period, you created 183 articles for deletion discussions (based on a search of "Creating deletion discussion page"). This is at too fast of a rate. You are averaging 35 proposed deletions a day and 10 AfD nominations a day. I am unable to keep up with finding sources for the deletion discussions listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. I have had several articles I have wanted to write but have not written. I have instead spent a significant portion of my time participating in the large number of television AfD discussions to find sources so that articles about notable television series are not deleted.
I have concerns about the quality and accuracy of the AfD arguments based on my comment here and Artw (talk · contribs)'s comments here and here. Please significantly slow down the number of nominations you are making. I think seven seven proposed deletions per week and seven AfD nominations per week would be more reasonable numbers. Would you be willing to reduce the number of deletion nominations to what I have suggested?
I have concerns about canvassing. In a large of AfD nominations for "List of people on the postage stamps" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Jordan, you pinged two editors who had previously supported deletion of "List of people on the postage stamps" articles but who had had no prior involvement in the "List of people on the postage stamps of Jordan" article. You did not ping or notify DGG (talk · contribs), who had removed the proposed deletion you had added. You did not ping the editors from this AfD who had worked on improving the "List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" article. Cunard (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
AFD formatting
Hi there, just asking you because you seem to be active in AFD - after closing a discussion, it screwed up the formatting of the log? The entire page is now blue. Templates all seem fine, yet when I remove Derick Hall and preview changes, it goes back to how it is meant to be. Any thoughts? MaxnaCarter (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- You forgot to put a {{ab}} at the bottom of the discussion page. I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Was about to come and and say further closures fixed it, but looks like you fixed it. Thanks a lot. MaxnaCarter (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
People on postage stamps
Relizing that the German list included Adolf Hitler made me realize something. If there is any encyclopedic value to these lists, and I doubt there is, they need to be organized by year, not alphabetically. Of course, that will in a lot of cases lead to clutter of some monarchy being listed in lots of years. How many years have stamps bearing the likeness of Elizabeth II been issued? Any article that remains I think should be reordered to list the context by year, not alphabetically. That lists can stand for 19 years without sources (March 2003 to May 2022 is actually a little over 19 years) makes me unhopeful that there can ever be enough maintenance on these lists to justify them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Vote
Hi, Can you tell me where I voted several times here? I have only a vote, deleted by you, and discussions. Discussions are not votes. Please revert the deletion. Turbojet (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
An unsouced article for over 17 years has someone argue there is evidence for keeping it
This is just boggling my mind. List of people on the postage stamps of Italy has been unsourced for over 17 years. What evidence says we should keep the article? What evidence exists on an unsoured article? This is getting crazy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- These AFDs seem to have brought out the philately nerds. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose they have just as uch a right to their share as the many other more troublesome varieties of nerds (everyone has their own choices here) . And I do not see why you say undocumentable . Every comprehensive philatant source includes hem as a matter of course. Most have articles here. The few that don't ate the sort ofred links that can correct for systematic bias. (I suppose I should mention I lost interest in this field in hgih school and gave my collection to my younger cousin.) Jusr as the images on coinage are a major field of academic study as an auzxiliary to history, so is this. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Words, words, words. Too bad that there is no evidence for most countries that this is a "major field of academic study", or that "most have articles here" is not really true or relevant, as most had dreadful articles here which finally get deleted, despite your indiscriminate deproddings. Fram (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article in question is still without sources. Then there was the really nasty comment left on the discussion of List of people on postage stamps of Israel, that amounted to a very rude personal attack against me. I also noticed that DGG's comment comes off as totally incomprehenisble since there are so many misspelled words, including high. Being a long time observer of Wikipia it is obvious to me that Philatelycruft needs to have the brakes put on it, just as we put the brakes on Starwarscruft and Lordoftheringscruft among many others. The level of coverage we currently has is totally out of connection with what is actually justified by what can be found in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think once the dust settles and the outstanding AFDs are closed, the ones closed as keep need to be re-evaluated. (I think @RandomCanadian jumped the gun by re-nominating the Faroe Islands one so quickly.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have to say this is one of two things that have distracted me from doing what I really want to do, which is to get through reviewing Category:1901 births. The other is an ANI which was originally about an editor falsely accusing me of targeting his articles for deletion, but has now somehow turned into a proposal that would essentially ban me from nominating virtually any Olympian article for deletion. Evidently punishing the victim of uncivil behavior is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Piratesdixie.jpg
![⚠ ⚠](https://web.archive.org/web/20220606022430im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Piratesdixie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
BADNAC
This is entirely unacceptable. WP:INVOLVED applies to AfD NACs just as much as anything else. Obviously, you thought it was an OK thing to do, so... yeah. You really shouldn't be making NACs, given that thought process. I'm going to DRV this, regardless of whether or not you revert yourself, to get some eyes on your actions. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- What point would there be in dragging it out? Literally everyone said to redirect, so I saw no point in letting it continue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Darkover (TV series)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Darkover (TV series). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)