1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Gemma Oaten
Hi, just to let you know, the reason I blanked page Gemma Oaten, was because the redirect was not related to the subject. I did actually explain this in the edit summary. You undid my edit without an explanation. I was also planning on requesting deletion for the article although didn’t get around to it before my edits were reverted. Can you please explain what I did here? I’d hate to make this mistake again in the future. Many thanks. Blanchey (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Don't blank pages. Full stop. If you don't like them, change them, although think very carefully about changing the target of a redirect - you hopefully wouldn't change the content of an existing article to be about a completely different topic, but that's effectively what changing a redirect target does and you may be breaking wikilinks (check first) and external links (almost impossible to check). If you think the title is unworthy of Wikipedia, ask for it to be deleted, either speedily or after discussion. There are very few reasons to ever speedily delete a redirect, but there is a specific procedure for discussing whether one should be deleted, or perhaps re-targeted. One situation where you can blank a page, or nearly blank a page: if you are the creator and only author of non-trivial content, you can replace the article with a speedy deletion tag to request that it is removed. Did I mention, don't blank pages? Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The Gemma Oaten redirect is never going to get deleted. There is no article for that person, possibly never will be since she is notable primarily for one character (and a few other bit parts, some mentioned in Wikipedia), and the redirect is to an article that contains significant information about that character. In Wikipedia terms, that is how it should be. What makes you think that a redirect from the name of a person to an article about the most notable thing that person has done is so terrible that it needs to be deleted? There are several wikilinks to Gemma Oaten. What do you think should become of those? Just left dangling? So you're almost certainly wasting your time trying to delete this page. It certainly won't be speedily deleted, and brining an RfD is likely to be shot down very quickly; there are very few criteria for outright deleting a redirect and much worse things than this have been kept after discussions. Are you planning to write an article? If so, you don't need to delete the redirect. You might want to read up on the notability criteria before spending too much time on that - writing an article and then seeing it deleted can be frustrating. Lithopsian (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Admins who revert all edits
Dear Lithopsian,
I made a few edits on the locknuts page a while ago. I got a little bit ahead of myself changing the title and I agree that the title should be changed back. But there were many small edits I made before that, that were completely wiped out because the admin "Cambridgebayweather" chose to revert not from the title change but from the start of all my changes.
I have read that its not appropriate to revert edits without a reason, and I feel that those other edits were not given any reason behind their deletion. Are there any strategies so that one small edit doesn`t get all your previous edits deleted? Obviously I could wait a long time until someone else comes around to edit on the same page, before I make more edits.
Or perhaps its not regular to make lots of small edits on one page? Perhaps its not encouraged?
Kind Regards, Jayden Barnes.
- See WP:BRD. In summary, do what you want, expect that it might get reverted, and then be nice about it :) I already noticed the name change and think it needed to be changed back. I'll take a look at the edits that got reverted and see what I think. Making lots of small edits is OK, especially if they have informative edit summaries. That way, one or a few can be reverted without just stomping on the whole lot. Or sometimes it may be necessary to go back to an old version and start again. Even if I think some of your edits are good, I might not reinstate them immediately. That could be considered an edit war, but anyway I'll see what it looks like and go from there. Expect to see something at Talk:Locknut. Lithopsian (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
What is this star?
On Humphreys et al 2020, Exploring the mass loss history of the red supergiants, I noticed that there is an unnamed star on the table regarding Stephenson 2, which lists down the properties of the cluster's members. Its name wasn't placed in the table, but for strange reasons its mass loss rate and several other properties were listed. It is on page 17. What could be this star?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The "blank" line is a a second model for RSGC2-49. The two model fits are shown in figure 9. Lithopsian (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks.—The Space Enthusiast (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Your reversion of my bold edit
Greetings Lithopsian. I see that you have reverted my bold edit to repurpose the Earendel redirect. I acknowledge that your actions are within your collegial right and am not averse to the steps you have taken. Before deciding where to commence discussion, I'd like to simply ask: are you opposed to repurposing the redirect or are you procedurally wanting to ensure that broken links are preemptively repaired before effecting such repurposing (which I thought I had done and apologize where I did not, and should have). Thank you and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure. Today, the star is what 90% of people are looking for, but next month I doubt it will be. There is a star called Icarus, the previous most-distant known, but four years on nobody would conceive of making it the primary topic. The diacritics also complicate things: the star apparently doesn't use diacritics in its name (at least I'm not seeing any in my pdf reader). There are two versions of "Earandel" with diacritics (one of which is a mis-spelling), redirecting to different locations. Having the non-diacritic form redirect somewhere else again seems like a mess. Plus changing redirect targets inevitably breaks some external urls (maybe fixes some?) even if we clean up internally. The new dab page Earendel (disambiguation) has links to all the pages involved. My preference would be to stick with hatnotes for a few weeks and the whole thing will probably have died down, but do what you think is best and I'll leave it to someone else to review the page. On a purely technical level, there is a move discussion about renaming WHL0137-LS to Earendel (star). If that happened, *and* Earendel was a redirect to it, then probably the names ought to be switched. One more argument for sitting tight. Lithopsian (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Without overreaching, beyond reason, I have no rebuttal for the sound reason in your reply. Therefore, I'm convinced and will abide your recommendation to give this question time before seeking any further discussion. Best regards and be well.--John Cline (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing this. I don't know if you've noticed, or even if you are interested, but it has been proposed to move Earendel (disambiguation) over the Earendel redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Without overreaching, beyond reason, I have no rebuttal for the sound reason in your reply. Therefore, I'm convinced and will abide your recommendation to give this question time before seeking any further discussion. Best regards and be well.--John Cline (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
15 years progress on Mannahatta Project
There's a lot that has happened in the past 15 years, including a NYT bestselling book...--Pharos (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
HMS Tyger
I have advised @Rgdem999: to restore the page at HMS Tyger which he blanked today, and to discuss the fate of the article on the talk page. I will participate in any discussion, but, as the creator and major contributor to that page, I wish to avoid any appearance of ownership of the article. - Donald Albury 22:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Birmingham
Found a way around it. Concerned that a redirect from the wrong name though risks inaccuracy. There are plenty of wrong redirects already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitrio (talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea to create the article under the actual name of the club :) We can leave the difficult questions for later, such as what the redirect target for Birmingham F.C. should be, or if to disambiguate. Of course now the new article is almost an orphan, so maybe see if any of those existing wikilinks should point there. I didn't check every one. Lithopsian (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
"On Patrol" disambiguation page
I reverted your revert because I think the redirect to a page about an obscure artist with an album named "On Patrol" is less informative than a disambiguation page which mentions both the artist as well as the well-documented use of the term by United States Navy, among other Navies I might add. Ape89 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've never heard of him or the album either, but that is irrelevant. I'm a boring old fart and I assume you're not a huge experimental music fan either. You might want to read WP:DAB and especially MOS:DAB before you try to create any more disambiguation pages. Then read WP:BRD which suggests that you discuss before you start an edit war, not after. Although different capitalisations are often redirected to a single location (not least because the difference isn't always obvious to searchers), you might want to consider having On Patrol and on patrol (= On patrol because of a Wikipedia idiosyncrasy) as two redirects to two different articles. See also WP:HATNOTE, often a better solution for two (occasionally more) ambiguous meanings of the same term where one is more likely than the other. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- About starting edit wars, it's precisely because of that that I am here to discuss this with you instead of simply reverting without explaining my reasons like mods have done to me in the past, as for not discussing things before replacing the redirect with a disambiguation, you could ALSO have discussed things before reverting, I do admit that I maybe should have tried discussing the matter first, but I have noticed that people tend to get defensive when "their" articles are edited & as such discussion is often pointless because of that. Ape89 (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Supernova
I have nominated Supernova for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Your reset of Bernice Vere
Hello Lithopsian,
You restored a redirect page I had recently disabled. This page redirected a query for BERNICE VERE to the page for Agnes Vernon. Agnes Vernon and Bernice Vere are separate actresses. Bernice Vere was a English actresses making her mark in Australian movies while Agnes (Brownie) Vernon was an American actresses also acting in Australian movie as her career was fading.
I enclosed my justification for disabling this page in the comments.
I am currently in the process of revising the Agnes Vernon page and hope to create a page on Bernice Vere in the future.
This redirect would create some difficulties.
This is a copy of the justification I added to the redirection page when I submitted the change:
In the Australian film "Shadow of Lighting Ridge," the cast included[1][2] -
Agnes Vernon as Dorothy Harden
Bernice Vere as Portuguese Annie
Michael Jannetta (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have a very simple answer. You blanked the page. Don't. Just don't. Ever. No amount of justification will change that. If you blank the page, I will revert it unless someone else does it first, even if you insert a massive comment.
- So, if you don't like a redirect, the simplest solution is to change it to target a different article. You might also consider converting it to an article, obviously more work and obviously only for notable topics. In most cases, don't convert a redirect on one topic to an article on a different topic; you don't know everyone that might be linked to a longstanding redirect, and I will frequently just revert them, as do many other reviewers. If there really isn't anything anywhere even remotely related, or the term is completely non-notable, unlikely as a typo or mis-spelling, or even worse like spam, the way to delete it completely is through redirects for discussion (RfD). You can also use RfD if you really don't like a redirect, but you're not sure what to do with it, for example if you're considering converting it to a disambiguation page. Bear in mind that the bar for deleting redirects is very high: anything, and I mean *anything* that is remotely or tangentially related, even quite bizarre mis-spellings phrases, will be considered acceptable. The general rule is that "redirects are cheap" and unless they are actively harmful then they will stay. Lastly, there are a very few cases where redirects can be speedily deleted, but it is unlikely any of the criteria will apply to a redirect that's been around for a while.
- In this particular case, I don't have any knowledge of the subject area, but fixing Agnes Vernon would be a good start. You might, perhaps temporarily, add some text refuting the connection to Bernice Vere, or perhaps a hatnote. Note that that in itself would be justification for keeping the redirect, redirects don't have to be synonyms, just the best we can do for that term right now. You might also target the redirect to a film she appears in, and preferably is mentioned in the article, very acceptable use for a redirect of minor actors. An article about Bernice Vere would solve all your problems, I think, but I have no idea if she is notable. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I lied. There is one case where you can blank a page: when you created the article (or redirect, etc.) and nobody else has made substantive edits to it. This is taken as an indication that you wish the page to be deleted, and you can add a {{db-author}} tag to make that explicit. Lithopsian (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info.
- You have provided enough options to search for an alternative to my deletion.
- Michael Jannetta (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I lied. There is one case where you can blank a page: when you created the article (or redirect, etc.) and nobody else has made substantive edits to it. This is taken as an indication that you wish the page to be deleted, and you can add a {{db-author}} tag to make that explicit. Lithopsian (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Bernice Vere - The Auditorium Players". The Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. September 23, 1923. p. 26. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
- ^ "Bernice Vere". Quorn Mercury. South Australia. September 10, 1920. p. 1. Retrieved May 4, 2022 – via National Library of Australia.
468.4 m(?) helium line
I see you're active on astronomy articles - this is about WR 42e (and relevant edit by me here). I can't check the source, don't know off the top of my head and Google isn't being very helpful - should that be 468.4 nm? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect I wrote that in the first place and it is definitely nm. I fixed the article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for this. I have no idea how I did that – absolutely not what I intended! Glad you intervened. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Request for guidance
Hi Lithopsian, I am hoping you can answer a question about patrolling new pages about astronomical objects, since you've done a lot more of that than I have. What should be done with an article like HD 196775, which recently showed up in the New Pages Feed? It (barely) satisfies the naked-eye visibility criterion of WP:NASTCRIT, and has an HR Catalog number, so it clearly satisfies the astronomical object notability criteria. But all the article's references are to catalogs and papers that examined a large number of objects. I was unable to find a reference that dealt with this specific star in detail. So it probably fails WP:GNG. I marked the article as reviewed, but placed a tag on it indicating that it may not satisfy GNG. What would you do with an article like this one?PopePompus (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- An object meeting WP:NASTCRIT is presumed notable, but with the caveat that lack of coverage might still mean it fails WP:GNG. If I come across an article about a star with very little coverage, I look at a few things: if it unambiguously passes WP:NASTRO and it isn't a pointlessly "it exists" short stub, then it can stay. WP:NASTCRIT used to cover just about any Flamsteed star and anything above magnitude 6.5, now the criteria is anything above magnitude 6.0 and any Bright Star Catalogue star, which is virtually everything down to magnitude 6.5. In the past, a small number of fainter Flamsteed stars have been deleted, or redirected to a list. While there is no substitute for a proper literature search, a quick look at the number of related papers shown in Simbad gives an indication of notability: anything less than about 50 and there is really very little to say about the star. Another, completely unofficial, criterion is that most notable stars were included in the constellation navboxes as of about 2015, including many variable and double stars fainter than naked-eye. These redlinks have mostly been removed now, but still a useful reference. If we wanted to be strict, there are probably several hundred existing star articles that would fail WP:GNG and about half the exoplanet articles. In this specific case, I'd have no trouble marking the star as reviewed: the article has three paragraphs of text, a fully-stocked and referenced starbox, is a likely runaway star, and has a number of companions. Not exactly a blockbuster, but it at least says something beyond "I exist". If you sent it to AfD, there is a decent chance it would end up deleted, but I wouldn't bet too much on it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for letting me know how you view articles like this one. It's probably inevitable that there will be some borderline cases regardless of how carefully the notability criteria have been written. I will leave it marked reviewed, and I'll remove the GNG warning I placed on it. I guess that in marginal cases, the best choice is not to clobber someone's work and to respect the fact that someone put some work into it. PopePompus (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Completely by coincidence, I just came across GJ 1128. Now there's an article that probably should be deleted. It is in the list of star systems within 20–25 light-years, the third list out of four of closest stars, and that's about it. Should just be an entry in a list. Lithopsian (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)