User talk:Lithopsian/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should we add stars from the Early universe ?

On User:Nussun05/The Large Stars Quest, I saw that one of the submissions was Red supergiants in the early universe and it was verified. For me this means it will be added on Talk:list _of_largest_stars/New List . Should we add this ???? I suggest that we create another table for the ancient stars during the time of the early universe, since they do not exist anymore and some are hypothetical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.30.162 (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetical, never observed, and don't exist any more? Never going to fly, unlike those pigs outside the window. Lithopsian (talk) 10:12, 25 June 20

What do you mean ? User 122.2.30.162

It means the whole thing is getting silly. Which particular hypothetical unobserved unobservable non-existent star would be going in the list? You could start a new list, but what would go in it? I don't think the powers that be would be impressed by a list of made-up stuff. Lithopsian (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this thing is getting silly.First, IRAS 05280-6910, 1,260 solar radii or 1,738? Second, RMC 87F, 2,220 solar radii, An inaccurate size! Third , dispute on Stephenson 2-18's size, 474 solar radii or 2,158 ? but this dispute has been settled since the 474 solar radii is for a different star! Fourth, WOH G17, 2,955 solar radii, outside the limit for red supergiants! Fifth, RS Mensae, Unusually large radii of 4,630 solar radii ! But thank you for removing them since they are foreground objects and not those unrealistic sizes of 2,955 solar radii and 4,630 solar radii respectively. Sixth, WY Geminorium on Talk: List_of_largest_stars/New_List, Another inaccurate size of 2,238 solar radii! Seventh, WOH G347 with an inaccurate upper limit of 2,348 solar radii on the new list again ! Eighth, HD 270422, an upper estimate of 2,259 solar radii! Ninth, Red supergiants in the early universe, which you do not want to add. Huh, This is tiring, and getting silly. Multiple times my favorite star Stephenson 2-18 lost the throne for a while ! This is one of the reasons why i created Stop adding inaccurate sizes !, Is the 474 solar radii estimate for Stephenson 2-18 referring to another star? and more ! What shall we do about this ? Should we talk to Nussun 05 and PNS Murthy to stop adding stars? or shall we create a new table just like what I mentioned Above? I don't know. But no matter what, this is getting Silly, Ridiculous, Absurd and many more.*Sigh* this should stop soon. I'm getting annoyed ! This has gone too far !

I removed WOH G347. Checked the article myself, it is indeed fishy. And the only star I added was W Aquilae.PMurthy1011 (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Was Stephenson 2-18 the largest star in 2012?

The estimate for the size of Stephenson 2-18, 2,150 solar radii was calculated in 2012. Does this mean Stephenson 2-18 was the Largest star for 8 years already!? And does this mean UY Scuti was just a pretender !?

Who knows. It is 2020. Let's get today right before worrying about what might have been 8 years ago. Lithopsian (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Stephenson 2-18 might have another size estimate

On a post by Sam Halls on Quora, titled "Stars larger than UY Scuti", He placed Stephenson 2-18 at 1,630 solar radii. He explains that the highest log luminosity for the cluster was 5.4. I am skeptic to this claim, because 1st, In other studies, Stephenson 2-18 was not classified as part of the cluster. This leads to my 2nd reason: The 1,630 solar radii might be referring to another star. Just like the 474 solar radii estimate, it might be referring to another star. 3rd,he only mentioned only the 1,630 solar radii, not including the 2,150 solar radii value, meaning he must be cherry picking. 4th, Quora is an unreliable source, likely even more so than Wikipedia. Wikipedia, cites sources, Quora rarely does it. 5th and last reason, He did not mention the size uncertainty for HV 888, claiming it as the largest star. So, HV 888 is 1,353-1,974 solar radii, Stephenson 2-18 is 1,630 ( if actually referring to the star)-2,150. But it is up to you to find out. Hopefully my favorite star won't lose its title again. User 122.2.30.162 -17:10 UTC June 29, 2020

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did I mention ... oh dear? What an awful piece of botched original research, mixing different sources, made-up numbers, and sheer imagination. I know where 1,630 R_☉ comes from. Trust me, you don't want to know. I'd be embarrassed to even put it in writing. Lithopsian (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That value is probably a WP:SYNTHESIS radius that is calculated using data from two separate sources. 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:585C:115C:1054:9752 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Two separate sources, one of which is for a different star! Lithopsian (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So,Lithopsian, the post is inaccurate, and the 1,630 solar radii estimate for Stephenson 2-18 is inaccurate with it and referring to another star ? Where did the 1,630 solar radii came from? Let's discuss more about this post by Sam Halls. User 122.2.30.162 5:07 UTC, June 29 2020

AE Andromedae

The article for this stars states it's an LBV variable!?

And it has mass of 120 solar radii!?

So ... is it one, or is it not!?

Should it be added to the list, or not?????

Please clarify this!

Thanks!PMurthy1011 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does being an LBV mean it goes in a list of hypergiants? It isn't (apparently) a hypergiant. Lithopsian (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, but isn't an LBV a hypergiant - or is their some parameter that a few don't come under?PMurthy1011 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, an LBV is a variable type of luminous star. Some are hypergiants, some aren't. Lithopsian (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay ... but it is 120 solar masses! And a hypergiant is a massive star. Just ... doesn't matterPMurthy1011 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I also don't understand how a massive star that isn't a WolfRayet star can't be a hypergiant. It certainly is more massive than a supergiant, but it isn't a hypergiant. What makes a hypergiant a hypergiant?PNSMurthy (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Read hypergiant :) Strictly, a specific spectral type. Less strictly, whatever someone calls a hypergiant in a reliable source. Lithopsian (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh...PNSMurthy (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

An 'imposter' star?!

There is a star mentioned the above-mentioned Quora article called WOH S64. That name sounds eerily familiar to some star I know. I'm guessing that's the source from which the 1,788 solar radii for WOH G64 was gained? I'm also wondering if this 'impostor' star should be added to the 'New List'. Should it be, or should it stay there under the disguise of WOH G64?PNSMurthy (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Quora is not a reliable source. I think we've comprehensively shown that. Best to ignore it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

SurePNSMurthy (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I told Nussun 05 to stop adding inaccurate sizes

on Talk:list_of_largest_stars/New_List, Nussun 05 put RW Cephei at 2,269 solar radii. I was infuriated and I told Nussun 05 that it was his last chance, in Caps Lock and alot of exclamation points.However Serols, a user reverted my edit, but this only made me more infuriated. What shall I do? he is keeping on adding inaccurate star sizes. In my mind, I want to Ban him from Wikipedia for good, But... I don't know what to do!!!!!!! what shall we do Lithopsian, BTW I already reverted his edit, I want to stop him from adding inaccurate star sizes. User 122.2.30.162

Hello User 122.2.30.162, so you don´t write to a user, that is not acceptable. --Serols (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Always have to be polite. Or at least civil. Shouting, swearing, or abuse is a good way to get blocked. If your anger is about something justified, it will all come out in the end. Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wayang beber

wayang beber is a variation of wayang, it needs more complete explanation, just like wayang kulit, wayang golek, and wayang klitik Kawruhnusantara (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for discussion I think, because this is not forming a new page on the same topic Kawruhnusantara (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There is always a need for discussion when someone objects to an edit you made :) When you write enough to be worth having another article, nobody is going to object to the split. Wayang#Wayang beber already has more content than you wrote, and even a couple of references (probably needs more). Your article was hardly going to be disproportionate being part of Wayang and hardly justified a WP:SPLIT, and with no references at all it was just asking to be deleted. If you absolutely cannot bring yourself to edit Wayang, then work in a draft or sandbox until you have something that is comprehensive enough to stand as a separate article. Consider WP:AFC if you haven't created an article from scratch, people will review and advise on what it needs to be a successful new article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Article description

Hi there, you reverted two of my edits introducing lowercase letters to article descriptions. I was relying on the majority of descriptions I come across, and the app where it says that article descriptions "usually begin with a lowercase letter", but I'm aware this is not authoritative. Could you refer me to the policy where this is handled? Thank you. EnTerbury (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that the app says that. I looked through the policies and found WP:SHORTDESC#Content but that's not a formal policy, just a guideline. Template:Short description gives several examples which could be considered "the way to do things". It links to the guideline I mentioned as the way to write a good short description. Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions also says to use sentence case. Lithopsian (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that we're talking about two different policies, one of Wikipedia and one of wikidata - the latter of which is being implemented in the app. Apparently, for articles that do not have short descriptions, something from wikidata is shown. Those changes don't appear immediately on Wikipedia, but only after some time, I guess a crawler of some kind does the job in the background. The article data is not changed, no short description is copied into it. I'm not entirely sure how this system works, and I'm not sure I want to. EnTerbury (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The wikidata short description can be imported to WP. I think there is also a syntax that can be inserted into an article to reflect the wikidata value (I might be wrong) but the preferred approach is to have the template and text actually in the article. I'm not an expert on short descriptions. It would be unfortunate if the policies were different in both places, but not the end of the world (not for me, anyway). Lithopsian (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

J105

Thanks for your help on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J105&action=history. As suggested, I created a hatnote on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Ericsson_Naite&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.letort (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Levica

Your revert to make Levica (Slovenia) the "primary topic" made sense in May, however I am going to undo it now. As of the recent election, Levica (North Macedonia), will have a few seats, so I think it can be considered less of a secondary topic now, since it is no longer a fringe left-wing party (or rather, a fringe extraparliamentary left-wing party). Levica (Slovenia) has a higher percentage of seats/votes but I think that they are both roughly equally notable in having seats and a notable minority of votes (4-9%). So I will revert your revert. If this seems wrong to you, let me know. Thank you and stay safe. -Xbony2 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

HV 888's size

I do appreciate you used the link for Van Loon et all I gave for the radius of HV 888, but I'm not saying that's right. HV 888's size has been calculated many times (and many of these estimates are more recent than Van Loon et all). The 1477 estimate is more recent than the 1300 estimate. I advise you to change the size back to 1477:)PNSMurthy (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You just don't like smaller numbers :) Find a newer publication that quotes a radius, and away you go. Lithopsian (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, not at all, using the same logic, NML Cygnus is 1,183 solar radii and UY Scuti is 825. All I’m saying is, is that, if there are relatively similar, but ,ore recent estimates for a star, they should be used, instead of using some possibly obsolete estimate. It would be cherry-picking to use the Van Loon et all estimate for HV 888 and not for WOH G64, wouldn’t it? I actually support the smaller estimates, but the estimates I support are more recent.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Why Did Sam Halls said that Stephenson 2-18 is only 1,630 solar radii?

This is a Continuation of the discussion above. This, however is more specific; this will discuss about The claim Sam Halls made, That Stephenson 2-18 is only 1,630 solar radii, rather than 2,150 solar radii. Which is more Reliable? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know who Sam Hall is. Did he make this statement in a peer-reviewed journal? Perhaps at an astronomical conference? Did he cite the source of the radius? If not, probably best to forget about it. Lithopsian (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Technically, he did site his sources.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to the Quora Article above. I am suspecting he used it as an average of 978 and 2,150 solar radii, And speaking of 978 solar radii, It is not true because It uses a 2012 estimate and 2010 estimate , Which gets you WP: Synthesis And even outside Wikipedia, you can't say that because The Source for the 90,000 solar luminosity Does not give A temperature Other than the 3,200 kelvin estimate. I will discuss about this more at Talk:Stephenson 2-18. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

List of largest stars

Hello, Lithopsian. I just wanted to says you need to check the new added stars and also the new radius estimates in the List of largest stars page since the list started to be messed up after this edit [1] due to some cherry-picked larger (and recent) estimate and value calculated from Luminosity and Temperature instead of using the smaller and most accurate ones that are actually in given refs. Also, those new refs and might be innacurate since they give some crazy large luminosities and low temperatures that will give crazy large radii. In the ref , Idetifier msxlmc1677 suggests a ridiculously high luminosity of 1,952,457 L_☉ and a very low effective temperature of 2,700 K. Those parameters would suggest a radius of nearly 6,400 R_☉.

Indeed. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A good way to go at this is to clean up individual star articles where it is easier to be clear about which is the preferred reference and radius. Then that is the radius that goes in the list. I'll work on it at some point, but its like herding cats at the moment and I don't have the time to investigate every edit. Lithopsian (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Yep. the culprit seems to be Nussun 05... It turns out this was the first time That Stephenson 2-18 lost its title to an Inaccurate star size, After which it was repeated Many, Many times by Nussun 05. First,RMC 87F,then WOH G17, The RS Mensae, after which the page was protected, and a new list was created, But Nussun 05 did not stop there.She added WY Geminorium, another inaccurate size,Then an Inaccurate size of WOH G64, as well as WOH G347 as well as HD 270422, then an inaccurate size for RW Cephei, After which Alicante 8-S4 and THA 34-26 was added,which were both Inaccurate. Nussun 05 meanwhile has declared THA 34-26 as the largest star, When in actuality it was Inaccurate. WE SHALL STOP THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Disappearing Tables

Hi,

This regards your recent edits to the List of largest stars. It seems, that you have made stars, which are catalogued without templates (including RX Telescopii), disappear. I would like to know why you have done this.

Thanks,

PNSMurthy (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:List of largest stars#Where did all the templates go? and discuss there for widest visibility. Lithopsian (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure:) Also, see the talk for the list of largest stars (last discussion). Could you please make those lost revisions reappear?

Thanks!

PNSMurthy (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Since When Stephenson 2-18 was the Largest star ?

The estimate for Stephenson 2-18's size was published in 2012...But back then NML Cygni was the largest. Then Westerlund 1-26. Does this means It was the largest since what date? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the 2,000 solar radii estimate for VY Canis Majoris correct?

Remember that sockpuppet on Wikipedia years ago in 2018 When he ravaged the List of largest stars and firmly believes that VY Canis Majoris is the largest star at 2,100 solar radii until Stephenson 2-18 Came along ????? His name is Joey Pelobel in real life and He has a youtube channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Careful. See WP:OUTING. This information may have been posted publicly on WP, but probably still best not to repeat personal information. Lithopsian (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So is the 2,000-2,100 solar radii estimate for VY Canis Majoris inaccurate? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no "correct". Only different values from different sources, some of which will be newer or more reliable than others. Having said that, the 2,100 R_☉ value is about as bad a result as you could pick. It comes from Humphreys et al. (2007), older than the 1,420 R_☉ from Wittkowski et al (2012). It is also not actually contained in the paper, but calculated from the 430,000 L_☉ derived in the paper and an effective temperature of 3,200 K, which the paper itself describes as being derived by an obsolete method. Using the preferred temperature range from the same paper gives a radius around 1,800 R_☉. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That person that I mentioned above is a fan of VY Canis Majoris. Even after VY Canis Majoris was downgraded, He still puts it at 2,100 solar radii... Even As you said that It is the worst result as you can get... --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Stephenson 2-18 only 2,150 solar radii ?

I saw that on (Talk:List_ of_ largest_stars/New List), I saw that Stephenson 2-18 is only 2150 solar radii. Is this Right or wrong ?

My calculations give 2,149.6 R_☉, rounded to one decimal place. 2,158 R_☉ appears to have been calculated using a rounded luminosity instead of using an unrounded luminosity and rounded at the end. I have correct Stephenson 2-18. Lithopsian (talk) 15:16, 13 June

Ok.--THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Stephenson 2-18 distance based on Gaia parallax

What is the distance of Stephenson 2-18 based on Gaia parallax , as well as its size & luminosity ?

Don't know, haven't been there recently ;) The Gaia DR2 parallax is negative, so any distance derived from that is fairly meaningless. Bailer-Jones (2018) gives a distance of 3,879 pc (ignoring decimal places) based on a complex statistical analysis of Gaia DR2 parallaxes with input from the known galactic structure, but the margin of error is very large. From the parallax, I think we can safely say it is several thousand parsecs away, and that's about all. Lithopsian (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Why is Gaia supposed to Give accurate distance to stars but is giving Inaccurate data? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Gaia gives more accurate parallaxes than anything else. By an order of magnitude already, and probably another order of magnitude in the final release. There are still some problems. Some stars are just too far away, although most of the stars we can easily see in our own galaxy will be close enough to get a good parallax in the final Gaia release. Red supergiants have other problems: they aren't round and they aren't points. The diameter of red supergiants is typically several AU which means that their angular diameter is several times bigger than their annual parallax. Their surfaces are not evenly bright and not constant, so measurements of their position at different times may be looking at different parts of the star. In time, statistics should be able to even all that out, but Gaia may not make enough measurements over a long enough period to do that for some red supergiants, or it might just get unlucky and get spurious results. There are some negative parallaxes with apparently small margins of error, statistically they look good but are clearly incorrect. Statistically, many of these problems appear in the analysis as cosmic noise (not cosmic noise), which just means unknown variations in the measured positions larger than the expected random observational errors. The value and statistical significance of the cosmic noise is reported in Gaia DR2 for each star. For many red supergiants, it is larger than the parallax itself and means that the parallax is so unreliable that it could be considered meaningless. Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Aradial Networks

Added new article Aradial Networks, very simple and similar to Aptilo Networks I hope it will be approved this time.

VY Orionis

You missed a publication called "Notes on VY Ori", which is about both VY Ori and VV Ori. Also, if you look up 2MASS J05333588-050132, there are some archives. SpaceDude777 (talk) December 16, 2016

Deletion of "Garrett / teh ROBLOX Player"

Hi there. This is Garrett / teh ROBLOX Player. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garretttehrobloxplayer) I understand the reason why my article was deleted, but I have a question. Can you please restore the page temporarily, or for a few days? This is only so I can save a copy of the work. Please let me know by editing on the new page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gtrp. (This new page can be deleted with the re-deletion of the original page.)

Princes Arcade

I did not create the page I merely removed the incorrect redirect and improved the page. I wrote the introduction for both sites so there is no copyright infringement.

Gordonstown

Thanks for separating Gordonstown into two separate articles. I couldn't see how to do that myself. Cheers! --188.29.156.67 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You probably don't have permissions to create new articles. You would need to create a user account for yourself, and then I think need to have made a certain number of edits (10?). There is also an articles for creation process that will walk you through the steps of creating articles. Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

VY Canis Majoris as a candidate for a 2nd RSG phase

Hello, Lithopsian. I think you should see this paper below. It says VY Canis Majoris can be a candidate for a 2nd red supergiant phase.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/728/2/022007

2A01:E0A:47A:F100:34E0:EAE6:53CE:C342 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Haven't seen that before. Not a conventional paper pushing one narrow piece of information, but instead an overview with the sort of speculation you don't often get. Put something in the article about it, although remember it is somewhat speculative. Lithopsian (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvel Animated Universe

Can you block this user Aaa11769 from editing the Marvel Animated Universe page? because he is vandalizing and adding "Fan-term" even though it's official and confirmed it's the official name.

Sorry, no, I'm not that powerful. However, the page has been protected by someone else. Lithopsian (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

okay, Can you revert the page to the previous one because it confirmed that it's official.

No, I can't. You appear to have spammed everyone who has ever edited this article with the same request, which is only going to irritate people. Put your arguments on the article talk page. If you can generate a consensus for an article, then the block will be lifted and an article can be created. See how the discussion goes, give it a week or two. Lithopsian (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Stephenson 2-18

I would like to ask why all of my edits are reverted for this article with the only reason being "this star is not identified in 1990".

Because there are more contents on that edit that this. There are contents regarding Stephenson's survey, as well as additional words on Davies survey on the star. The section regarding the star's future was also referenced to a general article regarding the evolution of RSGs.

At least you might as well corrected only the information of the star being not the one observed in 1990, and not revert the whole edit that contains more information than that. No hard feelings, though. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You described, in great detail I must say, the observation history of the wrong star. I started out trying to remove the bits that were wrong, but it made no sense without those bits, so the whole lot got reverted. You could try editing the pre-revert version for accuracy, or start again from scratch, I'm sure some of the information you wanted to add would help the article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping figure out the disambiguation thing. I was having issues there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StripedCucumberBeetle (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Enthusiasm

Finding it hard to get motivated to edit much but picking some things that require least amount of work to kick through GA/FA while enthusiasm brittle. Sagitta is an easy target...just a bit to flesh out on any unusual stars (It does have some weird ones that's for sure..) Canopus needs a lead rewrite - not sure what else. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a little burst of energy and did some proofreading on Sagitta, and quite a lot of work on Theta Sagittae. FG Sagittae surely deserves a mention (and a better article!), probably also HD 183143. Maybe some more double stars? Although a lot of the Bayer stars are multiple, so maybe that's enough. There are a few more deep sky objects, but really not many: a little open cluster near M71 called H20, NGC 6839 which isn't even a cluster, and M1-67 around WR 124. Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay - we have HD 183143 in, now question is how best to describe FG Sge. I have placed it after R Sge as they are both ageing stars developing planetary nebulae.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a sentence about FG. It describes what is so unusual about it, although doesn't say exactly how rare an object it is. As in just a handful of similar stars are known, possibly none of them doing quite what FG is. Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that H20 and NGC 6839 sounds almost too nonnotable to include. Could even add a sentence or two more on FG. Just finding some stats on U Sge to add. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Rigel

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 28, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Biological rhythm

If you wish we can nominate this page for AfD - as a procedural matter. I just think this would be waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the usage of "biorhythms" in Google Scholar. It is used as a synonym of "biological rhythms", and among 10 sources on the first page of the search only #3 might do something with pseudoscience. This is a publication in "International Review of Financial Analysis", not a biological publication. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Night (novel)

You reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_(novel) to a redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_(book), I don't think this is correct; Night (book) is not a novel, it is a memoir, so the Night (novel) page should describe Edna O'Brien's novel Night. As I left it it was a stub, but I intend to extend it to a full article: the novel itself is significant, for example, it was described by John Updike as "A brilliant and beautiful book". Can I restore my stub - I have fixed all the incoming links. Notjim (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I only just spotted this at the top of the page. My suggestion is to create your article under a different, less ambiguous title, for example Night (Edna O'Brien novel). Possibly also create it in draft or in your sandbox, even use the articles for creation process to help you get something that isn't going to get kicked back when it appears in mainspace. There are other books, novels even, with the same title, so anything that gets created at Night (novel) is always going to be contentious, and it may well be moved out of the way in the future for something else or for a dab page. I make no claims about the notability or otherwise of this novel, but changing the meaning of a Wikipedia page should always be done with great care. Amongst other considerations, there is no practical way to correct all the links on the web that expect the page to have its current meaning, so you have to be very very sure that there are very few and that the meaning you wish to have is unambiguous and anyone expecting a different meaning is seriously in error. Lithopsian (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"ISOGAL" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ISOGAL. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 13#ISOGAL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Eastwick (Rhode Island)

Hi. Thanks for your edit, although deleting the template isn't the best way forward as the article ought to be deleted given that it just links back to the only article that links to it. I just haven't worked out which is the right category to list it for speedy deletion under. Can you help please? Thanks. Rebroad (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the reason why you're struggling to find a speedy deletion criterion for this is that there isn't one. In particular, G13 explicitly doesn't apply to redirects so forget that. Nothing (necessarily) wrong with a redirect that has no wikilinks pointing to it, certainly not a reason to delete it with no discussion. If you want to delete it, I think you'll have to go to redirects for discussion. Personally I wouldn't bother, there are very few reasons why redirects get deleted, basically for being spam, abusive, misleading, or highly unlikely. "Eastwick (Rhode Island)" doesn't appear to be any of those things, it seems to me like something someone may well look for in some form or other. Lithopsian (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruce A. Bailey

Hello, and thank you for the very helpful guidance about this orphan article. I used the 'Find link tool' and was able to make six links back to the article, so it's no longer an orphan. A new learning curve for me. Really appreciate your input, thank you. CourtauldGill (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for your share to Rigel! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Request assistance to undo article merge

Hey, I saw you reverted my restoration of the Tamaskan Dog article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamaskan_Dog&oldid=981353887). I have not been able to find a formalized process for how to go about undoing a merge, so I'm confused about the judgement of one of my actions as "good" and the other as "not so good".

Instead of saying what I did was "not so good" how about some assistance? Maybe in the form of linking me to a process to follow as a starter, though I'd love some more substantive help as every time I've tried contributing to Wikipedia I run up against bureaucracy and arrogance, which I struggle to work past to be as objective as the site's users deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxypaws (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that the merge was so long ago, the appropriate formal method would perhaps be a WP:SPLIT discussion, although the controversy is more about the notability of this title rather than whether the redirect target needs to be broken up. However, you have started a discussion at the combined article and it seems to me that is sufficient for now. I only objected to your undoing the merge before there had really been any discussion. Be patient, give it a few days, and see what happens. If it gets messy, you can always open a formal discussion later. You may be aware that the article has a long history of discussions with varying results; it is very much an edge case and so the widest participation will give a result that is most likely to "stick" for a while. If nothing else, a thorough discussion can be pointed at later as WP:CONSENSUS. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought, purely unofficial but something to think about: who cares if it is one article or two? There seems to be little argument that the Tamaskan dog is an offshoot of the Northern Inuit, so what does it matter if it is a section within that article? Write what you want there, anyone who searches or links to "Tamaskan dog" will get to the content and everybody is (should be) happy. Just an idea, but people really do get too hung up on the structure of Wikipedia when they should probably worry more about the content. Lots of little articles are not all that helpful to readers, they just scratch an itch of editors to classify and categorise. WP:SPLIT has lots of guidance and links to other guidance, but it does suggest not breaking up articles below a certain size for just that reason. Perhaps something to remember if the consensus in the end isn't to split. Very few people will object to you adding well-sourced content to the existing section at Northern Inuit Dog. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

HE_2359-2844 - corrected the link

Hi Lithopsian, the edit you reverted of mine is fine, the correction I did was incorrect. I corrected this time correctly so it goes to the heavy_metal_subdwarf and not to the heavy_metal_subdwarfs. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirects are not mistakes. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN which explains why they should not (usually) be replaced. However, in this case Wikipedia syntax allows a simpler solution. Wikilinks with trailing letters outside the wikilinks are shown as a complete link. This is intended for plurals, as in this case, but can be used for other types of grammatical extension to words. Have a look and see what you think. This is the recommended way for handling wikilinks to plurals of a page title, although there are often also redirects. Piping to a plural is generally considered a mistake. Lithopsian (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Move Serious Sam (video game) to Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

Could I please move all the contents in Serious Sam (video game) to Serious Sam: The Second Encounter? The discussion has been opened for 4 days already and no one else has wrote anything. Typhoon966 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The guidelines suggest seven days for a move discussion. It doesn't have to be that long in cases where a clear consensus appears, but with just one comment so far, I'd suggest it is premature to close. If someone comes along on day five after you closed the discussion and disagrees with the outcome, it all gets very messy. If someone disagrees on day 10 then they can't really complain so much. Also, it is best to let an uninvolved editor close the discussion, it avoids any suggestion of bias. Also, closers tend to be admins (don't have to be) and can do things like moving over existing titles, or moving attribution. Another possibility, if you want to treat this as a WP:SPLIT rather than a move, is to withdraw the move (which you're entitled to do if nobody has agreed with the move proposal) and open a split discussion. Or if you are confident nobody will disagree then just do the split, but make it clear you are doing a split rather than a cut'n'paste move. Definitely don't just paste the whole article into Serious Sam: The Second Encounter and then start pruning, it is likely to get reverted again. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on the type (computer science) link.

Hi Lithopsian,

the reasons for moving the link is explained in Talk:Type_(type_theory). If you were not aware of this, please undo your revert. If you had other reasons, please explain. If you simply insist on your revert, please remove in about-template in data type also, which became cyclic by your move. -- Cobalt pen (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Lithopsian, as you have not answered and other parts of the structural change had been reverted by a script, i outlined the intended change in Talk:Data_type#Type (CS), topic of this article and this article's use in WP, leaving it for resolution there, which i expect not to happen shortly. If you want to explain your revert, please do it there, but i sense, you did so because i placed a stub-template in an intentionally short article. Kind regards -- Cobalt pen (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on Bill Moore

Hi Lithopsian, I can't find the terms "Bill Moore" together with "TuneIn" on William_Moore therefore I inserted the reference to Bill Moore, founder of TuneIn on William_Moore. Blueice haller (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert Tapete?

Please discuss on WP:RFD. 2A01:4C8:72:A70B:99A2:1D43:3DF7:DB54 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Rather than taking a redirect page and changing its meaning completely with no thought for any links to the original meaning, discuss at RfD. The first try was arguably just bold. The second attempt after someone disagreed with your boldness is called edit warring, not a good idea. Still, let's see what the RfD decides, and all will be well. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

East Syriac Church and West Syriac Church

Hi, can you take a look at disambiguation pages East Syriac Church (disambiguation) and West Syriac Church (disambiguation), where articles on various East Syriac Churches and West Syriac Churches are listed, because main topic designations East Syriac Church and West Syriac Church are currently redirecting to articles on East Syriac Rite and West Syriac Rite. Since we have comprehensive articles on all of Churches from both groups, what would be the reason for redirecting those designations on specific articles that are dedicated to rites? Terms like "East Syriac Church" or "West Syriac Church" designate Churches as organizations. Since primary articles on those Churches are listed on disambiguation pages mentioned above, what would be the proper resolution for current situation? Sorabino (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I tend to take a dim view on changing longstanding redirects either to dab pages or articles on a different topic. Even accounting for internal wikilinks, there is no way to manage any urls elsewhere that may be linked to those redirects and there really isn't that much to be gained since there can be a dab page anyway. Still, there are times when a redirect target is clearly not the primary topic and a page title could be more helpful to readers. One process for establishing this would be RfD since it is a redirect; it is often used to get rid of redirects but a more common outcome even in those cases is to retarget or convert to a dab page and you could recommend that. Or now that there are already dab pages, you could open a move discussion to rename the dab page over the redirect. The same would apply to East Syriac and West Syriac. One at once or all at once depending on your patience, although all at once risks getting bogged down in multiple arguments and no consensus. Lithopsian (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand, there are several terminological issues that are related to those questions, and it might turn out that any discussion on the subject of all those redirects would become quite complicated. Since I am familiar with the subject in question, it is my impression, as an editor of several related articles, that terms like East Syriac Church and West Syriac Church should be used for disambiguation purposes, and same goes for terms like East Syriac and West Syriac, since they have even wider scope of meanings. Sorabino (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Try one. Make a dab page the way you think it should be and start a move discussion. Nothing to lose, plus people may come up with even better ideas. Whatever happens to one, you have a good basis for making the rest the same way. Lithopsian (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The mass of BAT99-98

Hi Lithopsian, you returned my edit, but due to the high uncertainty of the 226 solar mass of BAT99-98, I will introduce the new mass calculation method derived from the reference "Bonnsai: a Bayesian tool for comparing stars with stellar evolution models" in Talk:BAT99-98. 15:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hd93129 (talk • contribs)

Kepler-160 content, can I go further per WP:BOLD and make an obvious conclusion

This star lies a few degrees from the Galactic Anticentre. We are near the inner edge of our Orion Arm. It's distance is about the Arm's width. It therefore is on the opposite (outer-galaxy) edge of our Arm. I'm chastened if this finding is to be mentioned then it would infringe Original Research, animated souls on here.- Adam37 Talk 12:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest not. It may be something that you find obvious, perhaps even something I would consider likely, but hardly something that the average reader, or even editor, would find obvious. As such, a reference would be a good idea. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference edits

Can you explain to me what your issue with User:Guy Macon's citation edits are? And why you keep undoing them without apparently engaging in discussion on the issue? This is getting disruptive. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the Ping....Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Citation tools--Moxy 🍁 21:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I referenced that discussion in my edit summary here[2] and the edit summary of Lithopsian's response[3] indicates that he read it and disagrees with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Both of you should know that communication via edit summary is not sufficient for most discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I do know that. We talked about it here:[4][5][6][7][8] Jonesey95 joined the conversation at the RfC. I expected Lithopsian and Geo Swan to either weigh in at the RfC or continue discussing the issue at User talk:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer, but they did not do so. A reasonable assumption was that they had dropped the WP:STICK after seeing how the RfC was leaning.

Looking back, I should have posted a standard warning here. As an explanation (not a defense) my mindset at the time was "Hmm. Could Lithopsian be right? Do I need to stop using the tool as designed and advise others to do the same? I have been wrong before, so best to post an RfC and see if there is consensus on using this sort of tool". I didn't want to post a user warning only to find out later that I was in the wrong. Why didn't I do it later? My error. It simply didn't occur to me.

Lithopsian had already made his position clear, both on the Reference Organizer talk page and through his reverts. In particular, he reverted[9] the following changes which I believed are allowed:

• I changed <ref name=hog> to <ref name="hog 2000">.
• I changed <ref name="天文教育資訊網 2006"> to <ref name="Chen Huihua 2006">.
• I changed <ref name=martin2014> to <ref name="martin2014">.
• I changed <ref name=martin2014/> to <ref name="martin2014" />.
• I changed <ref> to <ref name="ErW1z">.

Instead of edit warring, I stopped at 1RR (Lithopsian was at 2RR) and left Lithopsian's preferred version up while I made sure that I wasn't going against consensus.

I invite Lithopsian to explain what it is about the above changes that caused them to revert them three times. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw the discussion, but it was closed before I had chance to comment. This is unfortunate since words were placed in my mouth and then used as a stick to beat me with. My disagreement with the edits is simply that they fix no problems, add nothing to the article, change the referencing style for no good reason (see WP:CITEVAR), and create a bunch of meaningless gobbledygook named references. If you guys all think that is an improvement then so be it. Lithopsian (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, for whatever it's worth, I agree with Lithopsian on this point. No one should be going around changing ref name=x to ref name="x". It's extremely fiddly to have to keep adding unnecessary quotation marks, which is why some editors choose to add no spaces (e.g. ref name=NYT19Nov2020). The whole point of CITEVAR is to avoid disputes like this. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

VX Sagittarii

Hello Lithopsian. This very recent reference states VX Sgr is most likely to be an extreme super-AGB star or even a TZO star and the most luminous AGB star at 217,000+160,000
−92,000. Can we mention it in the article?

P.S. should we remove the 853 R_☉ value in the starbox. It's pretty old comparing to the 1,120-1,550 estimate from Xu et al. 2018 and not reliable enough. Thanks. 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:6525:88A1:3F3D:25EB (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:VX Sagittarii. Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Radius disputes

It's clear we have very different perceptions of what values we choose. Let me explain what I think, I think we should pick the most recent values and put both of them in the radius box to create a range in radius. It's never certain which one is gonna be absolutely correct so I feel this is the best method. How do you usually go about choosing which radii are the most suitable to be chosen? Faren29 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I read the referenced papers, I try to derive a rounded picture of the most reliable and recent derived values, and I try not to cherry-pick the biggest radius I can find for stars I like. Then I discuss in good faith, not after I think I've reverted all the edits in my favour. Telling people not to edit-war in an edit summary that you made as part of an edit war is not good faith. You've done this on repeated articles and only when it looks like you might be out-numbered do you even start to talk. Very poor form. Take it to the relevant content talk page or perhaps the project talk page since it could affect multiple articles. Trying to cut side deals in private when I've already attempted to engage on article talk pages also doesn't strike me as being in good faith. Lithopsian (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to cherrypick the largest values possible, otherwise I would've kept 2,061 solar radii value for MY Cephei given by Humphreys et al. 2020, when infact, what I am attempting to achieve, is to move it down the list. What I am trying to explain, is that we can't pretend that the 1,134 solar radii given by Beasor et al. 2018 does not exist or is not relevant, because the simple explanation is that, it is relevant. Beasor et al. 2018 derives a radius of 1,134 solar radii from a luminosity of 10^5.19 solar luminosities and an effective temperature of 3,400 K. I've attempted to try to talk before making edits I'm uncertain of, however I am commonly waiting numerous days to receive a response, sometimes I do not receive one at all. You will see evidence of this on my latest edits on the talk page of the list. I only feel it is necessary to talk when there is conflict, in which there clearly is now. I make the suggestion that we move MY Cephei down to 1,134 solar radii, as the list sorts value by lowest first. You've stuck to this principle for many years (at least from my observations), so I'm currently puzzled why you have been combatting my edits. Faren29 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I must add, the fact that you have stated 'I try not to cherry-pick the biggest radius I can find for stars I like', whilst simultaneously placing MY Cephei back to the top of the list, strikes me as massively hypocritical on your part. You have recently stated on a separate active discussion, 'It would certainly be good to have a more modern range of values for the temperature of the star as it pulsates.' Despite this statement being about the temperature of VX Sagitarii, it is perfectly applicable to the radius (and luminosity) values as well of any red supergiant star, as these three values all work triangularly in calculating the details of the star. I am highly reluctant to keep the star where it currently is, as it does not appropriately reflect that the radius of star varies and is uncertain. The only reason I see, that we should not add the 1,134 R_☉ value back, is if Beasor et al. 2018 is potentially unreliable. Faren29 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, abuse is a good way to start. I suggest you edit that out or at least strike it out as a gesture of good faith. Then we can talk. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I fail to understand what is abusive. I am merely stating what you have said recently, appears to be inconsistent. I don't understand how you keep mentioning "good faith", especially considering you are appearing to be very close-minded and not open to criticisms (which can be easily be improved upon) I have made about you. This, ironically, does not strike me as good faith whatsoever. If this is the only way to continue to discuss, point towards what was 'abuse', and I'll remove it. Faren29 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Big difference between "inconsistent", which could be a description of the edits I make, and "massively hypocritical" which is quite personal. Now you've added "close-minded". In Wikipedia discussions, it is best to stick to discussion of the content. Save description of motivations and personality for the most extreme situations such as WP:ANI. Lithopsian (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I will stick to discussion. I make the suggestion that MY Cephei is moved back down the list, as 1,134 R_☉ is still a new value given by Beasor et al. 2018 and it is better that we have a newer range of values, which is something you endorse. If of course, it is unreliable, than the value of 2,061 R_☉ given by Humphreys et al. 2020 can stay. However, Beasor et al. 2018 clearly states a luminosity of 155,000 L_☉ and a temperature of 3,300 K. We can calculate a radius from here using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Faren29 (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

V1494 Aquilae

Thanks for the cleanup you did on the V1494 Aql page. I'll try not to make such a mess of the references in the future.PopePompus (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretexting article/Social Engineering article split

Hello Lithopsian, I apologize for the confusion with the pretexting page yesterday. I understand my article was uncited, but I have no trouble reciting the sources from my original draft (if you'd like to take a look at my sandbox for the draft then you may). As for the split from the social engineering article, should I open up a discussion in the talk page of that article to discuss the split? I apologize again for the sudden creation of the article without discussing it. HanMiKC (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is always helpful to reviewers when a split has been discussed, but not 100% required (WP:BEBOLD). However, if it hasn't been discussed and has other problems (like no citations), then that ups the odds of it getting turned down. The pretexting section at Social engineering (security) is also poorly-cited. It can help in a split discussion if you've already expanded the section you'd like to split out to demonstrate that the content is notable and that the size is both unwieldy and worth its own article. WP:SPLIT has good guidelines for when to expand an existing section and when to create a new article, but apart from simple size and balance, one clue to how useful a new article might be is to look at incoming wikilinks ("What links here" in the sidebar of an article or redirect page). There are some wikilinks for pretexting, possibly more that could be added and perhaps also some going direct to the section.

I had a quick look at your sandbox. Are the reviews part of your university work? There is also WP:AFC which can give feedback more oriented to Wikipedia requirements, but I don't know if that is allowed for you. One obvious thing is a WP:LEAD, which you haven't got. Just a definition and summary of the article, one or two paragraphs usually. Possibly just taking one whole level out of your section structure would do it. The citations look appropriate, but have some formatting errors. Looks a little light on wikilinks, although too many can also be unhelpful. Like I said, WP:AFC can give better feeback.

On a related note, in case you hadn't noticed, I deleted Pretexting (security) since you had blanked it. Lithopsian (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

hey

Hey, please do comment, if you like, or not, at disambiguation page move discussion at Talk:Ortoire (disambiguation). I suppose I don't really know informed you were or not, and you certainly didn't commit any felony or even do anything much out of the ordinary, when you moved the new disambiguation page and restored redirect of "Ortoire" to Ortoire River. I hope you don't mind my characterizing/assuming you as not informed, in a comment there and/or at my own Talk page. I am afraid I have been, or have come across as being, grumpy/dismissive more than a few times recently. Including perhaps by my having referred to you and having pinged you from those discussions. I personally am sometimes irked when pinged, when it seems to me that I am being rebuked somehow perhaps; it's not completely obvious to me when to ping others or not. Nothing of importance going on with any of that.

Anyhow, I am glad you're active and contributing in Wikipedia, and hope you will continue with your good work! cheers, --Doncram (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Stars

Hello, Thanks for letting me know about HD 1273 and HD 12846. I have been looking for more info and I updated the articles. Are they okay now? Regards. ExoEditor 18:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi Lithopsian, while they may not satisfy CSD R3, these redirects should still be deleted because they are not useful at all:

• Ballade No. two in F major - no one would spell the number out
• Ballade No two in F major - no one would spell the number out
• Ballade no. two in F major - no one would spell the number out
• Ballade no two in F major - no one would spell the number out
• Ballade No. 2 in F major Chopin - by the time the user has typed in "Chopin", Ballade No. 2 has already been suggested
• ‪Ballade Number 2 in F major - no one would spell No. out

Also, they were created for Ballade No. 2 (Chopin) only and not for any of the other ballades. Cheers, intforce (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RFD. They are longstanding redirects and as such there is quite a high bar to removal. Read the guidance at WP:RFD carefully and decide if you can argue for any of the reasons listed there that these really need to go. Your arguments seem to apply mostly to how you personally would search for these articles. You also need to consider how someone else might type the name and how search results might be presented given their different preferences or Wikipedia search engines in the future, whether those terms exist anywhere at all on the web. It may be excessive to have all the different subtly different spellings, but the general starting assumption is usually that redirects are cheap. Might want to keep your final argument to yourself since it isn't a reason for deletion (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) and might encourage someone to go on a redirect creation spree. Anyway, up to you if you think Wikipedia really is a better place without them. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

UU Aurigae

Should I remove UU Aurigae from the list? The radius from McDonald et al. 2012 was removed on the Wikipedia page. Faren29 (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably. If a radius isn't good enough for a star article, I don't think it is good enough for the list. Lithopsian (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is also a few more issues that could be addressed. Should V1943 Sagittarii and SV Pegasi (Kervella et al. 2019) stay on the list? Those stars are based on Gaia data and honestly I added them expecting them to get removed. V744 Sagittarii is from Stassun et al. 2019 and I'm not sure if this should stay either. Faren29 (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Kervella uses an empirical method for calculating radii that has not been calibrated for supergiants and probably shouldn't be applied to them. In these cases it gives dubious results, although that could well be down to the unreliable parallaxes. V744 Sgr just has a very unreliable Gaia parallax and anything blindly derived from it should also be considered unreliable. The DR2 parallax is likely very wrong. The one in EDR3 looks a little more likely, but still unreliable. These are all fairly obvious AGB stars and any radius approaching even 1,000 R_☉ should be treated as doubtful until there is very strong evidence. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Would this be considered doubtful enough to take them off the list? Since V1943 Sagittarii is above 2,000 R_☉ and SV Pegasi is near it on the list, and you stated anything approaching even 1,000 R_☉ should be doubtful, I would suppose this is another weightful evidence to take them off for the time being. I suppose we conclude that these three stars be taken off? Faren29 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems the stars were taken off by a fellow editor anyway, but I now request that we take WY Velorum A, RX Telescopii and V538 Carinae off the list as well. The radii are all based on data from Gaia Data Release 2, and all parallaxes contain a significance of astrometric excess noise well above 2, which VizieR states anything above 2 is considered potentially unreliable. The radius of RX Telescopii was taken out of the article recently, which leads me to believe if it isn't reliable enough for the article, it's not reliable enough for the list. To add insult to injury, V538 Carinae is not even really considered a red supergiant star, more an asymptotic giant branch star and long-period variable candidate. It's not like the value of 580 R_☉ is any better, the margin of error for the distance is much larger than the distance itself. Skinner and Whitmore 1988 gives a radius of 1,700 R_☉ for WY Velorum A, along with radii for some other supergiants, but these values are highly old. This leads me to conclude, that these stars be taken off for the time being. Faren29 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

FalconK (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No

I do not think we should merge 30 Arietis Bb for now.Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Kukna and Kokna

Hello Lithopsian, the spellings Kokna and Kukna are used interchangeably for:

• Canarese Konkani
• A dialect of the Dhodia-Kukna language, spoken by the Kokna people.

The current situation has some inconsistencies such as:

• Kokna language redirects to a page Dhodia-Kukna language whose title contains the spelling Kukna
• Kukna language does not redirect to the page Dhodia-Kukna language, where the spelling Kukna matches in the title.
• The pages Dhodia-Kukna language and Kokna mention both spellings, yet Kukna language redirects to Canarese Konkani.

My concern is that people searching Wikipedia for one of the two languages may end up at the other. The Discoverer (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, but the whole point of a dab page is to disambiguate. Having lots of different micro-dabs doesn't help because the page someone was actually looking for might not be on the dab they end up at. Neither does one massive dab, but that's not going to happen here. Consider that a language is not the only possible meaning of "Kukna"; Kukna is already a dab page including both those language pages and might be a better starting point instead of creating new dab pages (see also Kokna). Also remember all the people linking to a longstanding redirect from outside Wikipedia that you just helpfully broke their web pages. And, it is entirely possible to keep the redirect and have a dab page named, for example, Kukna (disambiguation). No shame in that.

Also, in the case of a dab with only two options, a hatnote is generally preferred on the primary topic page with a redirect to that page. Less clicks for less people to get where they want to be. I have no expertise in this area, but Canarese Konkani seems a slightly obscure target, based only on the observation that it mentions neither "Kokna" nor "Kukna" while Dhodia-Kukna language mentions both. I do see that the redirect Kukna language was initially created by a page move from that title to Canarese Konkani, although with some reservations about that being the best target. My choice would be to target both to Dhodia-Kukna language (or leave them as they are since there are wikilinks to Kukna language and I think they all want Canarese Konkani), add a hatnote to one or both redirect targets, and fix up the existing dab page at Kukna. Definitely examine all existing wikilinks to each title before changing the meaning of them. Lithopsian (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added appropriate hatnotes to Canarese Konkani and Dhodia-Kukna language, modified the hatnotes of Kokna and Kokna (river) to point to the disambiguation page Kukna, and added more entries and details to Kukna. The Discoverer (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hyperbole

With respect you are the only one demonstrating "grammar problems", in the plural. Missing articles, again, plural, I think not. And there is nothing wrong with saying "it had co-existing name xxx". You don't need an indefinite article, and if you do that's fine too. A little latitude as there are at least 5 forms of country-based English around the globe, all of which are fine.- Adam37 Talk 17:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What you wrote was so unintelligible it had to be edited, grammar notwithstanding. Lithopsian (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you unreview

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Lithopsian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Xindian railway line, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lithopsian (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Crossed lines, I think. Lithopsian (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

what happened...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I probably clicked a few seconds after you did. The Curation toolbar unreviews if the article is already reviewed, so ... I only noticed when I saw I'd sent you a message about it. Should be fixed now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shujauddin Shaikh

Hello, Lithopsian

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Padavalamkuttanpilla, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Shujauddin Shaikh, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Padavalamkuttanpilla}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Padavalam🌂  ►  13:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

lettered avenues, etc.

Hi, I see this edit by you which reverts my last edit creating a disambiguation page there, and which restores a redirect to a Brooklyn-specific article. And I see other similar edits. Could you please stop with those and let's discuss? During and since the now-concluded related AFD about Z Street, I now think differently. But redirecting stuff to Brooklyn is not right. Probably setting up anchors within and redirecting to the streets and whatever article which is now target of redirect Z Street is better. Anyhow, please let's get coordinated. Please ping me here if/when you reply, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram:. My edit was not made to insist on any particular target for the redirect; I was simply reverting the creation of disambiguation pages that don't disambiguate anything meaningful (ie. are not helpful to users of Wikipedia). However, I don't think the AfD establishes a global policy: Z Street in Washington DC doesn't exist and never has, so is relatively unlikely to be what a WP user was looking for (or maybe it is, not always easy to tell). Where a street does, or did, exist and we have an article referring to it, and it is either the only article with that street name or the primary topic, then it would seem odd to target a redirect somewhere else. An obvious case is 5th Avenue, which should not be a redirect to a generic article or a dab page. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Corrosion Monitoring

Dear Friend,

Thank you very much for your kind feedback and notes. Please take a note that i reviewed history of corrosion monitoring before creation of article and found it has 3 version only in some years which is not strong and not about corrosion monitoring (the title was corrosion monitoring only and not content), then upon creation it has been redirected to corrosion article. Ofcourse i am not surprised, because of most don't know corrosion monitoring after more than 10 years working on this field. Then i dare to create it and remove redirection and am sure most don't have enough knowledge to edit it. A few people can do it only and i am sure they are not in Wikipedia.

The article is not draft and is a complete article then can be moved to main space. I am not new in Wikipedia and have checked all terms and conditions including deletion,..... Therefore please move it to main space or if it has any problem let me know or let all talk about it. Ofcourse i intend to expand it if i have time or others can do it but it is a complete version alone.

Regards and ThanksShahramrashidi (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am 99% sure that if the article were moved to mainspace as it stands, it would be deleted. The layout, referencing style (inline external urls are typically regarded as spam), and lack of integration into Wikipedia (few wikilinks, no infobox/navbox/sidebar/etc.) all need work. Placing it in draft was intended to help avoid this outcome. I seriously recommend you do some reading, perhaps starting with Help:Your first article, on the various hurdles to producing a Wikipedia article. Most people start with some edits on existing article to learn the ropes although there is no rule against diving right in. Lastly, without wishing to bite the newbies, take a glance at WP:COI; having a close connection to a subject that you write about is not banned, but it is discouraged, you should always be transparent, and you absolutely must declare any type of payment that you may be receiving related to the article. I have formed no opinion on whether the subject itself is notable (previous versions were deleted for other reasons), but as it is written, it raises several red flags - perhaps better sources could be used to demonstrate the notability of the subject. It is encouraging that it has a number of links from other Wikipedia articles already. Lithopsian (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind advices. I am sure now that i can prepare it as mentioned. Most of them are visual and refences can be edited as acceptable. Also i don't receive any payment about article and as i know the issuing of article is free in Wikipedia and as users interest only and anyone don't pay it. Ofcourse if you pay me i will be glad. (just kidding). Thank you again for your kind recommendation and feedback.Shahramrashidi (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please check the draft and let me know your feedback. I think it is ready as your recommendation.Shahramrashidi (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I fixed some stuff. For a quick review:

1. remove wikilinks and references (also colons) from section headers, they mess up various WP operations
2. think about whether redlinks are actually notable enough to ever have an article, consider creating a redirect or pipe to where a redirect might point
3. drop all the level 3 headers and write some prose, then maybe don't need to do most of #1 but consider moving references to the end of the text that they support
4. think about some categories - don't add them to the draft except in the form [[:category name]] so that draft articles don't appear in live category lists
5. there are tone and style issues, but they are probably best addressed by interaction with other editors once the article is in mainspace and preferably after it is approved as notable

Lithopsian (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fixes. I revised it and tried to apply all your mentioned. Please check and let me know about result.Shahramrashidi (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest editing Corrosion monitoring with the contents of the draft. Normally, we would just move the draft but Corrosion monitoring has a long history that I think should be kept. I will probably merge the history from the draft just so it is visible in the furture although probably not critical. Keep a close eye on it, it will get reviewed (I'll let someone else do it) as a new article so there might be tags, suggestions, or even deletion requests. Lithopsian (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind review and comments. I know the rule o WP and ready to defend/revise/amend/improvement/development it about tags, deletion, suggestions and etc. and if it to be confirmed then i or others will be interested to develop it. Anyway all do acc. to WP terms and condition and i hope this article will be confirmed and used by all. About more editing or development i prefer to get reviews in first and if it is confirmed and no deleted, then do it. Anyway i appreciate you or your prompt support.Shahramrashidi (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Again. Please le me know who check for transferring of draft to main space? Is article confirmed to transfer? ThanksShahramrashidi (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Normally, the article would be moved from draft to mainspace, overwriting the existing redirect. In this case, I think it is best to edit the existing redirect and copy your draft article there, because the redirect has history including previous versions of an article. You can do that yourself, just paste the entire contents over the redirect. Then I'll arrange to have the history of edits that created the draft merged in so everything is complete. Lithopsian (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is done. please check all to prevent from any mistake. thanksShahramrashidi (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please Also correct the redirection of Corrosion Monitoring to Corrosion monitoring. TYShahramrashidi (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I did it. please check.Shahramrashidi (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"Royal Scotsman" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Royal Scotsman. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 2#Royal Scotsman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ranks/Positions in academia

Dear colleague! Yesterday you reverted my attempt to create a small article instead of an existing redirect from “Academic ranks”. You are right, such a paper, if any, should be titled “Academic rank” (singular). However I now decided not to create such a paper but to add some introductory words into List of academic ranks. In this context it is noteworthy that the terms “position in academia” and “academic rank” mean the same (exception are some ex-USSR countries), so the article List of academic ranks could be moved to List of positions in academia. SY, --Mikisavex (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly. List of academic ranks does seem a bit forced as a title. You could either make the move and see who squeals, or open a move discussion as described at WP:RM. Lithopsian (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Vulpes vulpes amicus

You reverted my edit with "Not valid for speedy deletion as you've been told, use RfD if you really don't like it". I do not follow - what do you mean by "as you have been told"?

WP:G3 tells me that "This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism.

There is no such subspecies as V.v.a. - can I not use the misinformation/hoax option for a speedy deletion? William Harris (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects don't have to be "correct", they can be typos, mis-spellings, potentially even hoaxes. They definitely don't have to be validly-published species, just anything at all that is likely to be typed in by someone interested in that subject. The speedy deletion criterion is titled "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes" and is, as you quoted, for "blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes" or to "redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism". This is neither. It is a redirect to a page about a related subject, not created by cleanup of anything, and if it is a hoax at all it is not an obvious one. More importantly, the speedy deletion tag was removed once by an admin. That is enough to show you that it doesn't satisfy the criterion and you shouldn't replace the tag. Instead, since you want rid of this redirect, you should start a discussion at redirects for discussion. You might want to read the notes and some of the essays linked on that page before you open the discussion; the rules for entirely deleting redirects are so narrow that it is quite rare. Still, give it a try and see what people think. Maybe someone will even be able to track down the source of the name because I couldn't. Or you might persuade the creator to blank the page or tag it themselves, that is a criterion for speedy deletion. Lithopsian (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough explanation, now I understand. I disagree that this is "a redirect to a page about a related subject" as the domesticated silver fox has no taxonomic classification, nor does the silver fox itself because it is a melanistic variant of the red fox. If anywhere, it should have been a redirect to red fox.

Could you advise me which tag the creator might use; they agree that this was an error. Else, I shall be off to WP:RFD as you have advised. Regards, William Harris (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

{{db-author}}. Lithopsian (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Regards, William Harris (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

δ Cephei light curves

Old figure

New figure

Hi,

You recently reverted my edit to Cepheid variable in which I replaced the old phase-folded light curve with a new one I created. I was planning to make similar changes to other, related, articles but wanted to understand your reason for reverting my change before I force you to chase me around Wikipedia reverting my changes! I also noticed you added the new figure to Classical Cepheid variable but didn't remove the old one.

The old image is low resolution (720×381 vs 2400×1800), uses lossy compression (JPEG vs PNG) and has data of unknown provenance. Also, assuming the data in the old figure is of V-band magnitudes, then the same information is in the green points of the new figure. So I personally don't see a reason not to replace the old figure with the new one.

If there's something wrong with the new figure that I can fix, I'm happy to do so.

Cheers, Warrickball (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember this. The problem is the audience. Without considerable explanation, the new image is not going to be understandable to most people, just a pretty rainbow. A single V light curve, albeit one with poor provenance, should be understandable with little-to-no additional explanation to most of the target audience and it provides a simple example of the Classical Cepheid sub-class within the list of sub-classes vs. the type II light curve in the next section. Cepheid variable does not seem to be the place for an extended discussion of the wavelength-dependence of the light variations. Or perhaps it is since it applies to some extent to some (all?) of them, although there is nothing remotely relevant right now. If so, that section would be the place for your new image. I thought Classical Cepheid variable was a better place for detailed explanations, although it is a bit light on text supporting this image at the moment. Easily fixed with an extra sentence and a good excuse for a lot more. I added it anyway. I left the old image, although it isn't so important now and could go. Lithopsian (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

V-band light curve of the prototype Cepheid variable, Delta Cephei, using data by Engle et al. (2014).

I've separated the V-band data into a new figure, which could perhaps serve as a drop in replacement for the old figure? I used the same green point colour to avoid confusion in articles where the two figures might both appear (even if separated by a lot of text). Warrickball (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Lithopsian (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sight restoration

I suppose disambiguation is the most logical fit for now, without prejudice for the creation of an article at this title in the future? It was previously a redirect to Retinal regeneration, but I thought that didn't really make sense (there aren't even very many retinal regeneration therapies, most "sight restoration" involves other techniques). I'm sure I'm missing other sight restoration procedures that could be included here. Elysia (AR) (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Might be difficult to claim that "sight restoration" is a notable topic in itself, but that's a worry for another day. As a dab page, there are probably some formatting changes to make. Another possibility is a set index article but I don't think this list would qualify. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Associated Statehood Act 1967

hello !

You reverted my change, claiming that it is vandalism. I disagree; my change can actually supply some information to attentive readers who go back along the redirect if they come in that way.

You threw me out so fast that I could not complete other relevant changes before receiving the notification. In fact I was considering what to do about creating a redirect from a new West Indies Act 1967 when I received the mail.

Please stop to consider the actual context before this becomes a struggle between two people both wishing to do the right thing: the West Indies Act passed by the British Parliament in 1967 is also (incorrectly) known as the Associated Statehood Act. Several Wikipedia pages use the wrong identification; one person made a (correct) change to one article but didn't make relevant changes to other other articles.

This was to have been my program:

1. find and modify other articles (the list included my brief mention Associated Statehood Act)
2. create a new West Indies Act 1967 redirect
3. leave in place the Associated Statehood Act with redirect, for those who arrive the 'wrong' way

• Why was my edit vandalism ?
• More importantly, can you propose a better way to do this ? Please let me know, either way. -- jw (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was vandalism because you broke a redirect. A redirect page is not the place to express your opinions about whether a redirect should exist and where it should point. Possibly the talk page, better yet WP:RFD. In a pinch, you can edit a redirect to point to a different target article or convert it to an article (sometimes a disambiguation page). None of this require you to break the redirect by overwriting it with commentary before making any constructive changes. Note that a redirect does not have to be "correct" or an exact synonym of the target subject, it does not even have to be a correct spelling. It is there precisely to help people who don't know what the correct title or article title is. A redirect category can be added to express that it is known to be an incorrect name.

About your ultimate goal: you want to leave in place a redirect Associated Statehood Act 1967 (and Associated Statehood Act?)? So leave it in place. Don't vandalise it. If you want to get rid of it completely, there is only one way, WP:RFD, and the attempt would be pointless because this is a helpful redirect as shown by the number of articles that used it (prior to you removing those uses). So make your other changes. It seems like a redirect from the correct formal name would be valuable. Other articles may or may not need editing. If the act is commonly known, for example used in the sources used by the article, by the incorrect (nick-) name then keep it. Or change it to the correct one if this is the more common usage (or use both to avoid confusion for people that might think there are two acts), or in places where the formal name is better. Lithopsian (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

After consideration and a short absence, I have created the West Indies Act 1967 page with redirect. I understand and agree that redirects can and should exist from 'wrong' synonyms. -- jw (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Luke (name)

Hi,

I noticed you recently reverted my edits to Luke (name) and Luke (given name). I would like to understand why these changes were reverted, as I was trying to split the surname and given name sections into two separate articles. The surname page still exists (Luke (surname)), but it makes more sense for the other page to be called "given name" rather than just "name". This is why I made the changes I did. As "Luke (given name)" was a redirect page, I could not simply move the page, but instead needed to copy and paste, then shift "name" to a redirect page. Let me know if there is any other way moving a page is possible (I do not know of any other), as I feel this is a warranted move. Debartolo2917 (talk), 21 March 2021

Pages should not be renamed by cutting out the content of one article and pasting it under a new title. This makes it appear that you have written the whole thing by yourself in one go, whereas in fact it was most likely written by many editors over a long period of time and their efforts muct be attributed. In oldentimes, history would be pasted into the new history and that can still be done in complex cases or where cut'n'paste moves have gone unnoticed for some time. However, there is a method for renaming articles which moves the history and talk page as well as automatically creating a redirect at the old title. Pages can often be renamed properly by almost anyone. However, if there is already something at the new title, even a redirect to the article being moved, and there is a history of edits on the new article, then you won't be able to overwrite it. You must request an admin to do it for you, which it appears you have done. This "uncontroversial" process may occasionally be disputed, although often the admin will reject it if it looks likely to be controversial. Then a move discussion will be needed, and the page may get moved when the discussion is closed. Lithopsian (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Xiangyun & Cut and paste moves

Hi,

I saw that you reverted my edits to Xiangyun again, effectively erasing/deleting all of my writing and edits for the Xiangyun article. This action seems unfair after my comment stating that I tried and was not able to create a new article under "Xiangyun", since this title or term is already taken. The word/title "Xiangyun" is currently being used for the "Xiangyun (disambiguation)" page, which takes up the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangyun, so I was not even able to create a draft under "Xiangyun". And even if you think there is a different way to create or rename/remove the article, it would have been better, after the first round of reverting edits, if there was a discussion occurred with me or on the talks page so everyone can reach a consensus before you just went ahead and reverting the reverted edits again. If you have the "rights" to move/rename an article properly, which it seems like you probably do, then I would hope that you could have moved the article, instead of reverting the edits, which resulted in completely erasing/deleting a full article and turning it into a disambiguation page only with just a few bullets. Meanwhile, I did not know that copy and paste was not allowed - still, I apologize for doing so unknowingly if I did - I was copying and pasting my own edits trying to repost the content of the article after the entire writing was reverted/deleted.

And on the title "Xiangyun" and the primary topic for the term - it might be true that there are different Xiangyuns, but please note that all of the other Xiangyun terms are either Xiang Yun, Xiangyun County, or Shi Xiangyun, etc. None of them is the exact word/spelling as Xiangyun. The Xiangyun I wrote about only uses the exact word and spelling of Xiangyun, and there is no words other than "Xiangyun" to describe or spell this term. In addition, this Xiangyun is more widely known and more widely used than the other Xiangyuns - as I have pointed out in my writing in the article, the Xiangyun I referred to is frequently used in Chinese and Asian culture, including mythology, paintings, literature, decorations, sculptures, etc, as well as internationally, with the Beijing Olympic Torches being one of the more prominently known cases. Therefore, it should be the primary article for the word "Xiangyun".

In conclusion, what we need to do is to find the best way to restore and/or fix the Xiangyun article and the Xiangyun (disambiguation) article. I still believe the title Xiangyun should be the primary article with the Xiangyun term I referred to, and the Xiangyun (disambiguation) being the page for all of the disambiguation listings, but I'm open to suggestions and other solutions.

Thank you for your understanding. Hanren1 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything preventing the creation of Draft:Xiangyun. It may be that you are unable to create new articles because you do not have sufficient permissions. That is intentional. New users and those with insufficient experience do not have as many permissions because they may not have the experience to do so correctly. I wouldn't have thought that applied to drafts though. Maybe try again using my wikilink above. Anyway, it appears apt that you are prevented from creating new article because you clearly do not have the experience to do so without breaking things. And just to be clear, overwriting an existing article and changing its meaning, even a disambiguation page, is breaking things. If you want to change the meaning of Xiangyun, for example if you feel there is a primary topic, then start a discussion. You may think it is obvious that your preferred topic is the primary topic, yet the fact that such an article does not yet exist suggests it may not be so obvious to the majority of people, so discussion is needed. The appropriate discussion in this case would be a move discussion, to request that Xiangyun is moved to Xiangyun (disambiguation) in order to allow a new article to be created. You may have a stronger argument if you create the new article in draft and then request that it is moved into mainspace. Either way, you'll find out if other editors agree with your thoughts, and then it will be done (or not) by someone with the appropriate editing rights. I suspect you'll find that the consensus is to leave well alone and create your article under a different title (Xiangyun (symbology)?), but I'm just one editor. Lithopsian (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ophiodon

Hello. I see that you have redireected Ophiodon to Lingcod. However, Wikipedia:MONOTYPICTAXA is not clear in the case where there is only one extant species. Ophiodon contains one extant species and one extinct species, therefore it is not clear to me that it is monotypic. However, I appreciate that the Lingcod article contains details of the extinct taxon, so this may be an edge case, but either Ophiodon should be reinstated, or Wikipedia:MONOTYPICTAXA should be edited to account for this rule. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, an edge case indeed. You might like to drop in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Species_articles,_again and see the discussions about whether extinct species should be lumped into genus articles. There is a longstanding policy to do so, but it is controversial and not universally followed. I suggest that you raise this specific case for discussion, although I'm not sure what sort of consensus you'll get. Lithopsian (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look. Ophiodon has been restored by the way, and not by me so I'll let you take that up ;). YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't edit war. As (effectively) a new article, it is still in the curation queue. Someone else will look at it and probably approve it. Or maybe not, luck of the draw for these sorts of cases. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I also have learned my lesson on edit wars. I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but I think it's just on the side of a seperate article for the genus, and maybe lumping Ophiodon ozymandias with that is a reasonable thing to do, although clearly Lingcod should be seperate. I am no expert though so happy to defer. Cheers. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

FYI - I've just issued a {{Uw-3rr}} warning to Avilich at User talk:Avilich#6 April 2021 in respect of Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation), where you and I have both been active recently. See also Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#Name and User talk:Narky Blert#Claudia Pulchra. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Avilich (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

nuclear growth factor NR1A4

I'm trying to create a new article with this title, then direct the old name to this new article.

So you want to rename the existing article nerve growth factor IB to Nr4a1? You're aware that the case of the redirect is wrong (in my uninformed opinion) and that it doesn't match what you typed here? See WP:RM, probably needing a discussion. Regardless of the steps involved, don't blank pages, that is never the correct approach. No need for a blank page in between what there is now and what you want there to be. Lithopsian (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile

this edit summary really made my day. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm a laugh a minute. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

TOI-561

Hi. I don't know much about astronomy. Can you explain this sentence in the article TOI-561: Because its year is measured in hours its surface temperature is estimated to be 2,000 degrees? I have a lot of questions. Thanks. Jorge Cisne (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess I should have looked at the body of the article as well as the infobox. That is indeed a confusing sentence. Off the top of my head, it is describing that the planet orbits the star in a matter of hours. Hence it must be very close. Hence it is very hot. Could definitely be worded better. Lithopsian (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I understand that. The planet is very hot because it is close to its sun. How hot is 2,000 degrees? Jorge Cisne (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Good question! Pick one: degree Celsius; degree Fahrenheit; or degree Kelvin. I'd guess the last one, although the correct unit is just kelvin, not degree anything. Presumably there is a reference and it will say 2,000 whats. Then perhaps you could rewrite the sentence so a normal human being can understand it. So I took a quick peek and there is no reference. However, one of the discovery papers quotes an equilibrium temperature of 2,480±200 K. Lithopsian (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Pridnestrovie

Why did you delete the text of this article? I spent two days writing it and collecting the information. What other "cut'n'paste"? Jobyr (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There is already an article about Pridnestrovie. At Transnistria. And Pridnestrovie is a redirect to it. Go on, click it. We don't need two articles about the same thing. If you think the article at Transnistria is missing some details then you can update it. You should never cut the contents of one page and paste them under a new title. If you think the contents of that page should be moved to Pridnestrovie then normally you would start a move discussion. However, there was a move discussion in February as well as one in 2018. They were both overwhelmingly opposed and starting another discussion now would probably be taken as being disruptive. Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not find an article about Pridnestrovie here, so I started writing it. I saw that there was a redirect to "Transnistria", but what does this have to do with modern Pridnestrovie? And all the information that I copied from somewhere was indicated by links to sources. Why should I update the article about Transnistria if I am writing an article about Pridnestrovie? Jobyr (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read the article at Transnistria. Go on, just the first sentence will do. So there is indeed an article about Pridnestrovie, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic to give it is full breakaway name. We don't need another one. I find it bemusing that much of the opening paragraph matches your new article word for word. If you don't know what it has to do with Transnistria then you probably shouldn't be writing anything at all about it. If you really don't know, then read the talk page, especially the two requested move discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I read it. Judging from the discussion, some group of editors decided that it would be funny to apply the name "Transnistria" to Pridnestrovie. Well, arguing with them is useless, but describing Pridnestrovie in an article under the heading "Transnistria" is at least insulting, not to mention any correct encyclopedic information. And I know very well what the term "Transnistria" has to do with Pridnestrovie: this has nothing to do with the content of that article. I will not take part in this. Jobyr (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

G3000

I noticed that you undid my revision of the G3000 redirect page. Please explain your comment further "only two entries, revert to probable primary topic and add hatnote" so I can understand how to do this correctly. There is already a primary article on Gray Iron which which references the common alloy/grade G3000. How do I "add hatnote"? A person searching wikipedia for G3000 could be searching for either the avionics system or the grey iron (the latter being more common). --Lbecque (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That was a while back, had to go and refresh memory. G3000 currently redirects to the avionics system Garmin G3000 on the basis that it is the more likely of the two possible articles for someone to be looking for as G3000. That article has a hatnote, so that people who actually wanted the other article can get there quickly, so you don't need to add one as things stand. The reason that a disambiguation page is rarely used in these situations is that it would mean 100% of searchers have to work out what is going on and click through, instead of less than half if we get the redirect target right, or more than half but less than 100% even if we get it wrong. See WP:TWODABS. Anyway, that's why I reverted your edit, plus of course it wasn't actually correctly formatted as a dab page. You believe that Gray iron is actually the primary topic in this case? Why? It is a somewhat more popular article than Garmin G3000 in terms of raw page views, but what percentage of those came by looking for "G3000"? I would suggest a very small fraction for Gray iron (it only occurs in the article as one line in a table of alloys), and the majority for Garmin G3000 which actually is the model name of the system. It seems from internet, book, and journal searches that the avionics system comes up more often in relation to "G3000", although there are a number of other possibilities not currently with WP articles so maybe a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the redirect. Perhaps most importantly for determining the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that every instance of "G3000" I could find in Wikipedia, except the table entry at Gray iron, is for the avionics system. Lithopsian (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Time For Livin'

Am I understanding that you would prefer Time for Livin' with a small f here? 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Lithopsian (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Marar/Murrah/Murar

Hiya. The whole Marar thing is a bit interesting today, as we have a member of that family crashing around making huge OR changes to the articles. The Murrah is a bedouin tribe spread across the whole Arabian peninsular. Because of the joys of Arabic transliteration, we also have the Marar of the UAE and Qatar, essentially offshoots of the same tribe, but settling on a slightly different spelling of the name. A little like McNabb vs MacNab. The assertion that the Emirati Marar are distinct from the Saudi Murrah is hard to stand up - there's no source for that and also it's a bit like me (the Scottish/Irish McNabbs) being sniffy about the Canadian MacNabs appropriating my name. There is also the Dubai suburb (in Deira) of Murar - named after the Marar who settled there, mostly from Abu Dhabi. They also moved North and settled areas of Sharjah. But they're the same name. Hence a redirect to Murrah, rather than a dab page (Murar in Deira doesn't have its own article and isn't arguably notable enough to have one). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Alexandermcnabb:. Plus at least two Marar locations in India (probably many more, not likely to be notable) and a type of temple musician (see Maarar). I hadn't even seen Murar. I've cleaned up incoming wikilinks to Marar so its OK as a redirect for now, but the number of them suggests that the term may be ambiguous enough to merit a dab page, possibly at the base name. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Arabic usage and transliterations to know if Marar is in widespread usage vs Al Marar (and the other ambiguous terms are all of limited notability themselves), but see Murrah. Lithopsian (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I know. Murrah was where I ultimately redirected Marar purely because of the duplication. "Al" is Arabic for "the", so Marar is 'Marar' and Al Marar is 'the Marar'. It's all part of the wonderful world I inhabit. You should try your hand at Anglicised place names around here... a real joy! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I made this....

at User:Casliber/sandbox - still feel a bit blocked on Canopus...would like to get back to it at some point. Anything else tickle yr fancy? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well that certainly brings it home. I've not been very productive recently, but I can always dream. Canopus is the obvious target, but maybe Arcturus could be addressed more easily? I have a morbid fear of Alpha Centauri, the article more than the star itself. Lithopsian (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

what scares you about alpha centauri? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Every time I've tried to improve Alpha Centauri, I don't feel like I got very far. There is lots of content and lots of interest from other editors, but it doesn't seem to hang together and I get the impression that the average reader would struggle to get through it or even to get through the lead. Whenever I try to clean it up, it seems like it gets more and more tangled, different editors pulling loose ends in different directions or adding more cruft. The overlap with Proxima Centauri is one elephant lurking in the corner of the room. I just avoid it now. Phobia! It also isn't really my area of greatest interest. Lithopsian (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that enthusiasm plays a critical part in improving any article really...agree about yr feelings on Alpha Centauri overall....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

57 Peg

I noticed you reverted my edit on the Pegasus constellation template. We have other stars that have duplicate entries, so why revert this one? Praemonitus (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There are other duplicates? Deliberately? I delete them whenever I come across them. They are particularly un-useful if they link to a redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know if they are intentional. Praemonitus (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It would seem to be opening a whole can of worms to include multiple entries except in the most exceptional circumstances. Stars have just too many designations. A few cases that I know of duplicates in the navboxes and have left them are where an article discusses two stars which are referred to by different designations, for examples as members of a binary system. Can't remember an example off the top of my head but I created one just a few days ago! Lithopsian (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

your re-deletion of the trans fat article

Please see the talk page of Fat.

A trans fat article existed for 10+ years here, was rated a high quality article. It was merged when a CLEAR majority opposed doing so, and by an editor who is no longer active or engaging. There are similar articles for trans fat in every other major wikipedia.

I provided notice I was restore the article, and one other editor agreed with me.

For this reason, I am re-restoring this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanscottp (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that this article was not deleted. It was moved (and then a chunk merged to a different article). If you don't understand the difference then you might have bitten off more than you can chew. I see no editors offering support for your position. You might claim that enough time has gone by to be considered consensus by default, but given that there is an ongoing discussion about major reorganisation of the fat articles, it seems highly presumptive to start out on your own. WP:BRD says be bold, then don't edit war if someone disagrees. In any case, restoring the Lithopsian (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive mass-deletions of the new content I am adding. If you have anything substantive about trans fat, add it to the page or talk page. Declanscottp (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Declanscottp You are the one that needs to stop. Your edits have been reverted by a number of different, established editors in good standing. You need to engage in the talk page discussion and realise that your edits are currently in breach of wikipedia's attribution policy. Declanscottp, you need to wait for the discussion to conclude before taking your own presumptive action. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And your edits have been reverted by two different editors beside myself, and you edit warred them. I also noticed your and poly's request for page protection occurred shortly after two mysterious Indonesian IP edits made incoherent or vulgar vandalism attacks on the trans fat page, which never happened to the page before. Funny how that happened, huh? I wonder if it happened before. Declanscottp (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You are very, very mistaken. I have made a single edit at Trans fat, explain exactly how that is edit warring? Polyamorph (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

New edits to the List of largest stars

A while ago, A user edited the list. He added notes to the reference of Stephenson 2-18 (Fok, Thomas K. T; Nakashima, Jun-ichi; Yung, Bosco H. K; Hsia, Chih-Hao; Deguchi, Shuji (2012). "Maser Observations of Westerlund 1 and Comprehensive Considerations on Maser Properties of Red Supergiants Associated with Massive Clusters". The Astrophysical Journal. 760 (1): 65. arXiv:1209.6427. Bibcode:2012ApJ...760...65F. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/65. S2CID 53393926.), and other stars. The note said, "The uncertainty in the distance to this object is more than 50% so the value given may not be accurate." The other stars with the reference above Have the same uncertainty note. I get it, but I believe you mentioned that all stars have some degree of uncertainty. --The Space Enthusiast (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Stalking the line of WP:OR, maybe crossing it. I don't think that paper supports any claim to a margin of error on the distance to St 2-18, so on that basis alone it could be removed. The distance is definitely uncertain, but so are other critical factors such as the interstellar extinction. Overall, the luminosity isn't known to within even 50%, the temperature a little more precisely but the radius depends on its square, so the radius is little better than a wild guess. In the article though, we can only say what can be supported by reliable references. Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Oh, by the way, I found the 50% error in distance in the paper, but it says relative error. What should we do about Stephenson 2-18 and the other stars with Thomas et. al? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is the mention of the error? I'll look in the paper and see if it supports what the note says. Lithopsian (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The error is on page 11-12

Yes, I see it now. Fairly meaningless statement. You could say the same about the distance to almost every star in the table. Lithopsian (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

OKay, so could we remove the note?

Request to review HD 35759

Hey Listophian, I've recently created a new article titled HD 35759. Can you please review and tell me what's wrong with it? Thanks.

-- 400Weir (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily anything wrong with it. Could do some cleanup, but nothing major. Notability is very borderline. It might have got missed by the page curation people, but equally they might have held off because the notability is unclear. None of the references in the article appear to be specific to this star and a quick search suggests there is no published research with in-depth coverage of this star or its planet. Going by WP:NASTCRIT, it would seem to fail all four points. Why do you consider it to be notable? Lithopsian (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Culture of South America

Hi, I just wanna know what’s the problem with my edits on the article Culture of South America, because I actually used only Wikipedia sources, not external… So why did you canceled them ?

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (WP:NOTSOURCE). My problem is not specifically with your edits, but with the entire article. I was tempted to simply replace it with a redirect but couldn't think of anywhere good off the top of my head. Still, don't pile loads more into an unsourced article, especially when it says right at the top that it needs more sources. Unsourced material may be removed at any time and that time is now. Lithopsian (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Baten Kaitos

You'll be interested in my recent post at Talk:Baten Kaitos, I think. Skyerise (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure why I'm watching this, but apparently I am. Quite the edit war going on there. I suggest walking away for a few hours to avoid getting into trouble. The world isn't going to end while you're having a cup of tea, but it might avoid bad consequences. There has been discussion for some time (never a formal discussion such as WP:RFD? maybe that would have been better), not that there were many participants. That in itself might tell you something. Now there has been a request for closure. We should all avoid changing the article from its initial state during that time, not least to avoid confusion, but also to avoid allegations of bad faith. Given that the discussion has hotted up, third parties might choose to wait a day or two before closing. I've weighed in for a dab page, but there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus for any particular change. Maybe that will change, or maybe a third party will see it differently. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Amiyah

Hi, I don't understand your edit on this page. Could you please explain why you wanted to add these disambiguation tags? A455bcd9 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Not what I wanted to do. Lithopsian (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dhulipala

Hello, Lithopsian.

Re this edit, do you think that Dhulipala is a WP:PREDIRECT to Dhulipala Seetarama Sastry? If not, I intend to fix the 20 or so incoming links so that it can be converted to a surname page. Thanks -- Ab207 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the two people as such, way outside my field. If you think that there really is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then fix the links and dab. However! Between only two articles, I feel quite strongly that there is almost always a primary topic, after all it is one or the other and you only have to be right half the time to send readers to the right page. Then add a hatnote. In the same vein, the number of incoming links to one title suggest it *may* be the primary topic. Or it may just be that way for historical reasons. Also consider whether either or both of the actors is commonly referred to solely as "Dhulipala". Anyway, I am always sceptical about a dab page with only two entries; who is it helping? Probably not helping the reader by sending them to somewhere they don't want to be (ie. not an article) when you have a better than even chance of redirecting them straight to where they want to be. Lastly, of course, don't be fooled into thinking that what you are currently working on is more important than it really is in the grand scheme of things. If it was so important, chances are someone would have created the article/redirect/dab page long ago. That's my thinking, but you decide. Lithopsian (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

PTOPIC is tricky. The yesteryear actor was often credited as Dhulipala (hence the incoming links) but only the modern actress shows up on the web searches (though she isn't referred mononymously). I thought dab page is the way to go but looks like there's more to it. Anyway, thanks for the input! -- Ab207 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Prev-next tables for Messier objects

Hello, This is a request for comment/advice. I have begun adding simple prev-next tables for the Messier objects, see for example Messier 11. This feature is useful for browsing the articles. I stopped at M11, soon plan to edit the rest of Messier object articles. What do you think of the idea? Can you suggest any improvements? I'm rather a novice with wikitables. Thanks! Assambrew (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

My initial thought is that the placement (I only looked at M11) won't fly. Such things are usually placed at the end of the article, often centred on their own line. Then it strikes me that it is redundant. The existing navbox comfortably shows all the Messier objects, and obviously the previous and next ones, easily clickable (although hidden by default on at least some of the pages). I would suggest canvassing for more opinions the project page, always a good idea if you plan on making bulk changes or high-impact layout changes. Lithopsian (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agree on your placement not being acceptable, and taking it to the project page before going further. You might look at how seasons are handled in some sports pages, e.g. 2004_NFL_season. At the end of an infobox is much less obtrusive, and it looks like Messier object articles all have infoboxes of some kind. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought being at top of the page was convenient, but I suppose you're right, it is redundant. I like the idea of being at end of an infobox, but as there are many different ones used by Messier objects, looks like a lot of work. I will desist and roll back my changes, glad I didn't do more last night. Thanks for the input, guys. Assambrew (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm Requested Move a Pages from User talk:37.235.53.33 to HE 0020-1741

Lithopsian, Please You Move a Pages from User talk:37.235.53.33 to HE 0020-1741, Because It's Being Created by An IP Address Users with Bad Titles CD -32 9396SSE (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Fomalhaut in fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fomalhaut in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fomalhaut in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Summer soldier (disambiguation)

Hi, you re-linked Summer soldier back to The American Crisis. The idea was that users who look up the term in the search field are sent to the disambiguation site first, which you undid – now the users end up on The American Crisis again, which I do not regard user-friendly. Also, there is no use in using the "Other uses" template in the head section of American Crisis (which would lead users to the disambiguation page), as the term in question is not identical to the article's title. --Robert Kerber (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The term doesn't have to be identical or a synonym in any sense. It simply has to target the most likely article that readers would expect when entering that term. This is known as the primary topic. I suspect that The American Crisis is the primary topic for this term, but in the even that it isn't, you should be very cautious about taking a longstanding page title and completely changing its meaning. You have no idea who has linked to it and you just broke their page. There is now Summer soldier (disambiguation). If you feel that Summer soldier itself should be the dab page instead of the redirect, open a move discussion and see if the WP massif agrees. I have opposed the unilateral change mainly because I feel it needs discussion, not because of an intense burning opposition. I do find that none of the alternatives linked from the dab page has an article, pending approval of you new one, suggestive that they are not highly notable. Still, I won't fight whatever a consensus of editors decides. Pending that, I'll look into a suitable hatnote. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Lithopsian: I do not agree with the way you handled this, but I agree that a discussion is a way to find a solution. Btw this is not a move discussion but a WP:RFD redirect discussion. Please find the discussion I've opened here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#October_16. --Robert Kerber (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nauru national soccer team

Hi Lithopsian, for some reason the NPP tool did not register that I created a redirect at this title; the expansion into an article was by Sambamtime, and I've now left a note on their talk page. This expansion took place today, and includes references from 2018 and 2020, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nauru national soccer team (2nd nomination) (closed by RoySmith was in 2017. I have passed on your notification to Sambamtime and have replaced the speedy deletion template with a notability tag. As I suggest in my edit summary, it would be better to either revert the expansion, restoring the redirect, or to take it to AfD in view of the newer sources. (I was an admin in the past but no longer am, so I can't see the original article. Admin Black Kite was among the delete !voters at that time, as was I; either of those two admins is better placed than me to advise on where to go from here.) Sambamtime is not new, but has few edits, so I'm conscious of WP:BITE, especially if the NPP tool doesn't distinguish between creation of a redirect some time ago and its later expansion into an article, and creation from scratch. On the other hand, they may have drawn on a Wikia or some other "fan" site, and there used to be an LTA who created articles on obscure national sports federations and requested creation of others on people's talk pages, so perhaps someone suggested this to them without pointing out the history of deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I decided on a third (!) AfD rather than a possible edit war. This time the new article creator was notified, but not you. @Yngvadottir: in case you want to follow it or express an opinion. Lithopsian (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Cairns Technical College and High School Building

Hi, your recent edit claimed there was copyright violation. This is incorrect. The source material comes from a CC-BY source and is correcty cited and attributed as required. Could you please revert your edit. Thanks Kerry (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. The article still screams "problem" to me, but I'll leave it as-is for someone else to look at. Lithopsian (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Radio supernova" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Radio supernova. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#Radio supernova until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Central Coast (SI) vs Central Coast United (NSW)

Dear brilliant user, you have reverted my edit on the redirect on the bias that there are more wikilinks for a small club of NSW than for the championship winner of Solomon Islands. You may be right but you did not consider that the full names of the 2 clubs are NOT the same. The NSW is a United FC, the Solomons, just a FC. And there are already many links going to Central Coast F.C. (see [10]). wikipedia has not to make a choice on a bias like that, and Central Coast FC should indicate both clubs, not only the Australian one. IMHY. Yours (reply here and not on my page, please).--Arorae (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have policies for exactly this situation, and it is certainly not a blanket "create a dab page for every case with two ambiguous articles": see WP:TWODABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:HATNOTE. In most cases, a redirect and a hatnote is the best solution. It may be in this case that the old redirect was not really the primary topic, but the overwhelming preponderance of wikilinks (tp the redirect, so [11] is the relevant page, not the one you gave) and the fact that the newer article didn't even exist until today does add some evidence in its favour. Also note the previous club name. Anyway, all arguments for another day. As it stands, there are a whole bunch of articles with wikilinks that are broken if you change the page from a redirect to a dab page. Not to mention any links elsewhere on the internet which are impossible to trace or fix. Plenty to be cleaned up before it is possible to completely change the meaning of the page. Lithopsian (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 1002 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 1002 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AfD discussion title until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

400Weir (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Light curve (disambiguation)

The article Light curve (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation not required (WP:2DABS). Primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)