This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoeNMLC.
Hi JoeNMLC! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).
That was bad draftification, and I have reverted your move. Subject clearly passes WP:NPOL as the former member of Kyrgyzstan legislative assembly. Sources were there to verify the claims. I have added one more source from the corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any further queries. Maliner (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a new music page called Starry but I've got some tags on it . Can you enlighten me on how to improve on the article .. I'll appreciate your response on this sir. Thanks Princeisrael2728 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings @Princeisrael2728 - While I am not familiar with musician biographies, I did update the article's Talk with relevant WikiProjects. The Rater ORES assessment tool rates the article as "Start" class. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mistakenly credited that unsigned comment to me on the reassessment queue! I added the comment below it, not the unsigned Bertram Fletcher Robinson request. Apologies for any confusion!! Wasianpower (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Amitava Das (researcher). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it does not meet notability criteria.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hi Joe. Regarding your PRODs of Indian villages, these names are not originally written in English but appear on Wikipedia as transliterations from various different languages, so their spellings are not consistent or uniform. It's therefore more time-consuming to track down the sources than just putting a single spelling into Google. Ingratis (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see above that you've already (September 2023) had some discussion about Indian places, which contains some very interesting and useful points - I'm sorry for assuming that you were unaware of the issues. Nevertheless I'd like to add a couple of points, in no particular order: a) I agree with the above comments about www.census2011.co.in, but it is a deprecated site and is high risk as a sole reference; b) notability is not temporary - even if the latest census is not available, earlier ones still may be and are just as valid; c) (this is particularly important) if you are redirecting to another article, that article MUST mention the thing that you are redirecting, which MUST be referenced, like any other piece of information. Looking at the two places named above (Kalattiyur and Bharariwal), for example, this has not happened. Now I will leave you in peace, but please contact me if you would like to discuss further. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point of nitpicking: Census2011 is not deprecated. It is not listed at RSP, and I cannot find any discussion at RSN that ended with consensus to deprecate. The last discussion of it I can find was over four years ago. You may be thinking of the spam blacklist, but it is no longer on there as of a few years ago, at my request, because the official 2011 census site has been down for years, and census2011 serves as a useful mirror. Obviously I'll be happy to see it go when Census 2021 is finished, sometime in 2025 if we're lucky. But until then, it's not deprecated nor is it inaccurate in my experience.
That being said, Joe, Ingratis has a point here. I know we've talked about Indian locations a few times. You need to be very very careful that you've exhausted all opportunities to find any indication that these places meet GEOLAND. Keep in mind the extensive detective work I did in our September 2023 conversation - checking the name, cross-checking the census by taluk to look for similar spellings, checking Google maps for possible alternate spellings, etc, etc etc. If you're not prepared to exhaust every possible avenue, or you're not 100% confident, it's best to just skip these. It's better to mark some things as attempted and let the next person take care of them than to make a PROD or redirect in error. ♠PMC♠ (talk)10:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to hear that Census2011 is now OK, since it is so useful. It was previously much frowned upon if not actually blacklisted as a commercial site: see for example this discussion which links backwards to earlier ones. You're right - this is the spam blacklist. Things change, however, occasionally for the better! Ingratis (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingratis and @PMC - Sorry for my mistake, and thanks PMC for the reminder of "Attempted" de-orphan. I've been away on an archive search (hard-copy) for another organization that I volunteer for. Found the needed 2021 magazine article to reference for their webpage. Enjoyed "the hunt" and success. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joe. Indian villages used to be a favourite hunting ground at AfD and PROD for editors looking for easy deletions, because they can be so difficult to source properly, and many have been deleted wrongly, so I feel somewhat protective towards them. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this edit[1] and I've reverted it. I just think that the message you're adding can be a bit long and takes up much of the page. The unreferenced tag already helps prompt editors to search for sources in various ways, and links to relevant policy. Have a good day ForksForks (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ForksForks - Thanks for the feedback. There are two things I am hoping to accomplish with the notice. First, a reminder to occasional contributors of the criteria; and to help new editors just starting out with referencing. Below is a more condensed version of previous notice.
Please improve this Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be: (1) reliable, (2) secondary, (3) independent of the subject, (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Article was created on 5 March 2007.
Joe, I'm not sure it's necessary or useful to create a maintenance tag that's redundant to the existing unreferenced one. If you think the current one should explain things in more detail, maybe propose that at the Village Pump proposals page and see what others think. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PMC and @ForksForks, Today I started a feedback/discussion at WP Unreferenced articles, Discussion - criteria Ambox for unref. articles section. Also, I changed the criteria into a condensed transcluded "Ambox" instead. It's an active WikiProject so hoping for constructive advice there as well. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Hi, could you please stop moving articles to draft? You're sending all kinds of articles to draft for not having sources, and every single one I've checked so far does have sources. -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, I've reversed two of your draftifications of set index articles. Your rationale for draftification was that they did not include sources, but set index articles do not need references, similarly to disambiguation pages (WP:DABREF). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Joe. I've just removed quite a few links from articles on years in the United States that you added for de-orphaning purposes. My impression is you were not being adequately careful to make sure the links were appropriate in context, but rather were adding them merely for the sake of reducing the number of orphaned articles in the backlog. Please don't do this. It makes things worse, not better.
The fact that an article has not received any organic links (that is, links arising from ordinary editorial activity on other articles rather than an explicit de-orphaning process) can often be a good signal that the topic isn't notable in the first place. It's usually a waste of time to de-orphan an article on a non-notable topic: by nature, there's very few articles it could be reasonably linked from, and even when you can find such an article the link is often inappropriate to include because it would give undue prominence to an insignificant subject. That's a big part of the reason I went through and removed all those links from the US articles: they pertained to companies or organisations that lacked national relevance.
Goodhart's law very much applies to de-orphaning – if your target is simply "get the number of orphaned articles in the backlog as low as possible", it is all too easy to prioritise quantity over quality and end up adding a lot of superficial, irrelevant links instead of fewer but more relevant links, because that's what makes the number go down.
Some of these de-orphanings were from a while ago (2022) but as far as I can see no-one has ever actually talked to you about them, and you still seem quite active in de-orphaning. I think it's important to straightforwardly tell you these de-orphans made things worse so you don't do this sort of thing in the future. – Teratix₵16:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix - Understood, however I am a bit confused after I looked through your Contributions & picked Category:2011 in the United States at random. I see an entire section of "Undated" Events removed. So it's true that all those additions (1 from me & other editors) were non-notable? Whether orphan article or not, just not significant enough to warrant inclusion for Year 2011 Events. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No other editors were involved, you added every link that appeared in that section at the time I removed it: Swipp, Retrofit, Philadelphia Game Lab, Community Advantage Loan, Sifuna Okwethu, and Snapette. Yes, none of these merited inclusion in a listing of nationally significant events – most probably don't even merit a Wikipedia article, which is a large factor in why they were orphaned in the first place. I cannot stress this enough: don't de-orphan articles just for the sake of it. You have to take into account whether the links you add make sense in the context of the article. These didn't. – Teratix₵10:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a problem, unfortunately. It is not actually helpful to deorphan articles by linking them where they do not belong, and moreover in a manner that violates very basic rules about hatnotes in the MOS, so it seems that your focus is often on earning points in the drive rather than ensuring you're actually improving the articles you edit. Remsense ‥ 论13:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense - since the previous above feedback I have stayed away from Events and unfamiliar articles. It would be helpful if you could provide an example or two please. Also I'm confused by "earning points in the drive" - what drive for orphan articles? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, that it's more important to deorphan as many articles as possible than making sure you're actually helping. I think your linking of SinoLatin Capital on Shanghai is illustrative enough: I do not understand why someone would think the link of a specific, relatively obscure financial institution in a very broad economy section would be acceptable, or how it would help readers. It seemed like you immediately reached for any page that was mentioned on the orphan and shoehorned it in without thinking about how it reads or why it would be useful. Moreover, you put it in a {{Further}} hatnote at the end of the section. Hatnotes literally never go at the end of sections, and this really seems like you couldn't even find a place where it could plausibly go, but you linked it anyway so you could deorphan another article. Remsense ‥ 论14:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense - Thanks for the "Further" clarification, I did not know about not placing at section end. And unaware that "SinoLatin Capital" bank was obscure. So "Main", "See also" and "Further" templates all need to go at top of a section. Going forward I will make that adjustment. Because I'm on a high-speed internet connection, I is fairly easy for me to breeze through many articles in a short timeframe. I just have to learn how to be more careful in choosing articles to Skip so another editor can improve.
Is it Okay to add sections like "Notable people", "Localities", "See also" into articles without those sections? To provide a spot for adding an orphan article link. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to think more about the article you're adding the link to than the article you're deorphaning. That's part of what I was getting at earlier: the fact that it's framed as a deorphaning crusade is pretty clearly harmful to the results. I can't give you categorical guidance about what is appropriate or inappropriate: honestly, the fact that you would need to ask shows you really need to slow down. If you can't tell, you need to spend more time reading both the article you're linking to and all the candidates to place the link on. Remsense ‥ 论19:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cielquiparle for the recognition. While making small unref. contributions, I just keep chipping away. For a long time I've been de-orphaning articles; many for association football biographies. Recently via PetScan, I found a way to get a list of Orphan, Association football biographies + Unreferenced. That's great because for many of that select list, I find a DOB (date-of-birth) reliable source; remove Unref. tag; then add that bio. to appropriate YYYY in association football article, Births section & remove Orphan tag. It may seem complicated, but it's "doable". Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this was a bad edit, which I've reverted. You can't just add links randomly to the first article in the text! Japanese porcelain and sobamight be more appropriate, but there are literally hundreds of articles relating to porcelain, of which this is one of the most obscure. Teratrix above makes very good points. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why is it only through the Nigerian Communication Commission page that I can see the digital Bridge article. it is operated as a private company on an independent guarantee which is why the head is a CEO, although established by the former,? I want to add that important details Gold Junior (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm Landroving Linguist. Your recent edit(s) to the page Celle appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LandLing08:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
SuggestBot is making a list of articles that you might like to edit. You will receive these suggestions soon. In the meantime, you might be interested in checking out the following WikiProjects. If you're interested in a project, feel free to add yourself to the member list and introduce yourself on the project talk page!
Hi JoeNMLC! I’ll reply here since it’s easy. Your requests were submitted correctly, but the part of the bot that handles them was not running. Thanks for notifying me about this so I could restart it! Since you got a set of suggestions through subscribing, I’m stopping by to remove the request templates from here so you don’t get two more sets. I hope that’s helpful. Let me know if you have questions, I’ll be around more over the weekend to monitor the bot in case it continues to go down. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi @TenPoundHammer - for those three citations, I added (Subscription required), so I'm uncertain if those are a reliable sources. Perhaps continue discussion at article Talk instead of here? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
@jlwoodwa - Thanks for letting me know. At that time, I repeated because the requests were not posting. Not sure if computer was overloaded & running very slow? So now I did cleanup & removed the "extras" and kept one request. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@jlwoodwa - The Link for "Protected edit request" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Popular pages config.json still points to the previous location instead of the new location. I don't know how to fix. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a workaround for when the json page and the talk page were (inexplicably) in different namespaces. Now you should be able to submit an edit request in the usual way – click on "view source" (direct link for convenience) and then press the Submit an edit request button. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that, I got my dates mixed up. The current month is October – the move in question happened a month ago. Anyway, the talk page had an edit request link for convenience, but it was somewhat malformed (hardcoded an old date into the header). After the move, the link went from convenient to misleading. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@jlwoodwa - Thanks for the workaround. The "Protected edit request" is now "out there" & hoping to be done before Nov. 2 when the Popular pages Bot starts working for the new month. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
