User talk:Humbledumpty

Welcome!

Hello, Humbledumpty, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Law Firms by size

Hi. A page you have created has been moved to Draft:Hong Kong Law Firms by size because it is not ready for publication. ll the red links must be removed or have correctly sourced Wikipedia pages that meet notability criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humbledumpty (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not return this article to the Daft namespace, the redlinks will be edited out. Thankyou for your comprehesion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reminder. The problem has been fixed. Humbledumpty (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that names will not be mentioned on Wikipedia of people who do not have their own Wikiedia page and/or do not meet our notability criteria (sourced). See WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTBIO for related policies. . Please address the issues, otherwise the article might risk being deleted. Thanks.

This is a difficult problem as there must be certain objects having no Wikipedia pages. For example, on the page of List of largest law firms by revenue^[1], a number of law firms' names are in red since they encounter the same problem. The red-linked law firms, however, are real-existent law firms which have been directly referenced from the report as sourced. Humbledumpty (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant edit has been made in accordance with the editing guidelines of Wikipedia. The red-links are inevitable products in this case. On the page of Wikipedia:Red Link^[2], it provides that:-

It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow. Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start. ... In addition, even if the topic does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, you may make a red link to the term if you intend to write an article about an entirely different topic that happens to have the same title. In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic... Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.

I hope I am not mistaken. Humbledumpty (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a courtroom. I am surprised that only 19 edits to Wikipe4dia, you are already resorting to WP:Wikilawyering (and I use hat term with caution). The Foundation just manages the the software, the servers, the funds, and the legal issues. We do the work providing the content for free and the Foundation employees get paid for it. We decide what gets included in the encyclopedia and not the Foundation.

The issue is that names will not be mentioned on Wikipedia of people who do not have their own Wikipedia page and/or do not meet our notability criteria (sourced), otherwise this article reads like promotion for your Hing Kong legal community. Use red links only if you are already absolutely certain and in no doubt whatsoever that they would survive a deleteion enquiry. See WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTBIO, {{WP:GNG]], and WP:ORG for related policies. Please address the issues, otherwise the article might risk being sent to AfD for a community decision by experienced users. It will then be out of my hands, and in the domain of a million other regular, experienced users. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_law_firms_by_revenue

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link

[1]

[2]