User talk:Lithopsian/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fiasco at Stars and Planetary system in Fiction

I've walked away from the discussion at the article. I'd still like to rescue the earlier article in some form, particularly seeing that we've now dropped all the way to 6 5 items on less than a page. To bounce an idea off you - would it be inappropriate to create a List of stellar systems featured in fiction article? As a pure list article (and formatted as a list), presumably we'd avoid some of the angst at existence of fancruft, simply giving the 187 stellar systems and quick summary of works in which they are featured. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Possibly. The current purge goes way too far, but I'm also not going to lose any sleep over it. I wasn't a huge fan of the previous article, it really was a huge sticky ball attracting too much fluff. Anything in the future would need to be structured to avoid that issue. Perhaps a list would limit each entry, and perhaps it could be limited to works notable enough to have their own article already. I'm still keen to avoid every individual star article attracting the fluff without anywhere else for it to go. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've retrieved the old article and have started working on it in my sandbox. I'll target creating it by New Year's, perhaps - I'll let you know. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 18:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Tarl_N./sandbox. What will be time-consuming will be coming up with references and verifying the description/notability of each of the planets described. It's looking like most planets mentioned will probably stay, but need work. In the first seven planets, there are two entries from the Star Carrier series which I know are accurately described (I've read the books), I now have to come up with references for them. I figure doing 10 entries a day will saturate my wiki-time, which with 187 entries to do means I could be done by Christmas. :-) Tarl N. (discuss) 05:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Lithopsian! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.Onel5969 TT me 18:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Fettler/platelayer redirect

Many thanks for fixing the problem, Lithopsian!  :-) Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

About the article «Lima Cathedral»

Hello Lithopsian (talk · contribs), I saw that you reverted the changes I made in the Lima Cathedral article. I tell you that I made the change because «Lima Cathedral» is the most common name used for this cathedral, in the same way it is found in its counterpart in Spanish «Catedral de Lima» and I do not know why you have discarded the change then, in the history you do not justify the transfer of information, you simply undid it. I suppose you thought it was a mistake or some kind of vandalism change, but on the contrary, it is a correction that deserves the article. I hope you take it into account for future opportunities. Greetings! Carlos Pozo (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not how you rename an article. I gave you the link for how to do it correctly if you don't have the permissions yourself. Instead of reading it, you started an edit war. I suggest you read the help page and then revert your edits before someone else does and possibly blocks you from editing on Wikipedia in the process. Lithopsian (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Lithopsian:, I have created a topic on the discussion page about the transfer of the article to Lima Cathedral, to see if anyone has any objections to the transfer. I hope you can leave your opinion there. Greetings! Carlos Pozo (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

About The Metal-Poor Star "HE 0557-4840"

Lithopsian, Please You Make a Star Page named HE 0557-4840, Because I'm Adding These Metal-Poor Stars to The article named "list of oldest stars", Can you create them? CP -84 1219 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Create the article in draft or in your sandbox, then it can be moved into mainspace if it demonstrates notability. See also WP:AFC. Lithopsian (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Admins who revert all edits

Dear Lithopsian,

I made a few edits on the locknuts page a while ago. I got a little bit ahead of myself changing the title and I agree that the title should be changed back. But there were many small edits I made before that, that were completely wiped out because the admin "Cambridgebayweather" chose to revert not from the title change but from the start of all my changes.

I have read that its not appropriate to revert edits without a reason, and I feel that those other edits were not given any reason behind their deletion. Are there any strategies so that one small edit doesn`t get all your previous edits deleted? Obviously I could wait a long time until someone else comes around to edit on the same page, before I make more edits.

Or perhaps its not regular to make lots of small edits on one page? Perhaps its not encouraged?

Kind Regards, Jayden Barnes.

See WP:BRD. In summary, do what you want, expect that it might get reverted, and then be nice about it :) I already noticed the name change and think it needed to be changed back. I'll take a look at the edits that got reverted and see what I think. Making lots of small edits is OK, especially if they have informative edit summaries. That way, one or a few can be reverted without just stomping on the whole lot. Or sometimes it may be necessary to go back to an old version and start again. Even if I think some of your edits are good, I might not reinstate them immediately. That could be considered an edit war, but anyway I'll see what it looks like and go from there. Expect to see something at Talk:Locknut. Lithopsian (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What is this star?

On Humphreys et al 2020, Exploring the mass loss history of the red supergiants, I noticed that there is an unnamed star on the table regarding Stephenson 2, which lists down the properties of the cluster's members. Its name wasn't placed in the table, but for strange reasons its mass loss rate and several other properties were listed. It is on page 17. What could be this star?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The "blank" line is a a second model for RSGC2-49. The two model fits are shown in figure 9. Lithopsian (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.—The Space Enthusiast (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Your reversion of my bold edit

Greetings Lithopsian. I see that you have reverted my bold edit to repurpose the Earendel redirect. I acknowledge that your actions are within your collegial right and am not averse to the steps you have taken. Before deciding where to commence discussion, I'd like to simply ask: are you opposed to repurposing the redirect or are you procedurally wanting to ensure that broken links are preemptively repaired before effecting such repurposing (which I thought I had done and apologize where I did not, and should have). Thank you and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure. Today, the star is what 90% of people are looking for, but next month I doubt it will be. There is a star called Icarus, the previous most-distant known, but four years on nobody would conceive of making it the primary topic. The diacritics also complicate things: the star apparently doesn't use diacritics in its name (at least I'm not seeing any in my pdf reader). There are two versions of "Earandel" with diacritics (one of which is a mis-spelling), redirecting to different locations. Having the non-diacritic form redirect somewhere else again seems like a mess. Plus changing redirect targets inevitably breaks some external urls (maybe fixes some?) even if we clean up internally. The new dab page Earendel (disambiguation) has links to all the pages involved. My preference would be to stick with hatnotes for a few weeks and the whole thing will probably have died down, but do what you think is best and I'll leave it to someone else to review the page. On a purely technical level, there is a move discussion about renaming WHL0137-LS to Earendel (star). If that happened, *and* Earendel was a redirect to it, then probably the names ought to be switched. One more argument for sitting tight. Lithopsian (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Without overreaching, beyond reason, I have no rebuttal for the sound reason in your reply. Therefore, I'm convinced and will abide your recommendation to give this question time before seeking any further discussion. Best regards and be well.--John Cline (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I don't know if you've noticed, or even if you are interested, but it has been proposed to move Earendel (disambiguation) over the Earendel redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

15 years progress on Mannahatta Project

There's a lot that has happened in the past 15 years, including a NYT bestselling book...--Pharos (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Birmingham

Found a way around it. Concerned that a redirect from the wrong name though risks inaccuracy. There are plenty of wrong redirects already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitrio (talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Good idea to create the article under the actual name of the club :) We can leave the difficult questions for later, such as what the redirect target for Birmingham F.C. should be, or if to disambiguate. Of course now the new article is almost an orphan, so maybe see if any of those existing wikilinks should point there. I didn't check every one. Lithopsian (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"On Patrol" disambiguation page

I reverted your revert because I think the redirect to a page about an obscure artist with an album named "On Patrol" is less informative than a disambiguation page which mentions both the artist as well as the well-documented use of the term by United States Navy, among other Navies I might add. Ape89 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of him or the album either, but that is irrelevant. I'm a boring old fart and I assume you're not a huge experimental music fan either. You might want to read WP:DAB and especially MOS:DAB before you try to create any more disambiguation pages. Then read WP:BRD which suggests that you discuss before you start an edit war, not after. Although different capitalisations are often redirected to a single location (not least because the difference isn't always obvious to searchers), you might want to consider having On Patrol and on patrol (= On patrol because of a Wikipedia idiosyncrasy) as two redirects to two different articles. See also WP:HATNOTE, often a better solution for two (occasionally more) ambiguous meanings of the same term where one is more likely than the other. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

About starting edit wars, it's precisely because of that that I am here to discuss this with you instead of simply reverting without explaining my reasons like mods have done to me in the past, as for not discussing things before replacing the redirect with a disambiguation, you could ALSO have discussed things before reverting, I do admit that I maybe should have tried discussing the matter first, but I have noticed that people tend to get defensive when "their" articles are edited & as such discussion is often pointless because of that. Ape89 (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Supernova

I have nominated Supernova for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your reset of Bernice Vere

Hello Lithopsian,

You restored a redirect page I had recently disabled. This page redirected a query for BERNICE VERE to the page for Agnes Vernon. Agnes Vernon and Bernice Vere are separate actresses. Bernice Vere was a English actresses making her mark in Australian movies while Agnes (Brownie) Vernon was an American actresses also acting in Australian movie as her career was fading.

I enclosed my justification for disabling this page in the comments.

I am currently in the process of revising the Agnes Vernon page and hope to create a page on Bernice Vere in the future.

This redirect would create some difficulties.

---

This is a copy of the justification I added to the redirection page when I submitted the change:

In the Australian film "Shadow of Lighting Ridge," the cast included -
Agnes Vernon as Dorothy Harden
Bernice Vere as Portuguese Annie

Michael Jannetta (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a very simple answer. You blanked the page. Don't. Just don't. Ever. No amount of justification will change that. If you blank the page, I will revert it unless someone else does it first, even if you insert a massive comment.

So, if you don't like a redirect, the simplest solution is to change it to target a different article. You might also consider converting it to an article, obviously more work and obviously only for notable topics. In most cases, don't convert a redirect on one topic to an article on a different topic; you don't know everyone that might be linked to a longstanding redirect, and I will frequently just revert them, as do many other reviewers. If there really isn't anything anywhere even remotely related, or the term is completely non-notable, unlikely as a typo or mis-spelling, or even worse like spam, the way to delete it completely is through redirects for discussion (RfD). You can also use RfD if you really don't like a redirect, but you're not sure what to do with it, for example if you're considering converting it to a disambiguation page. Bear in mind that the bar for deleting redirects is very high: anything, and I mean *anything* that is remotely or tangentially related, even quite bizarre mis-spellings phrases, will be considered acceptable. The general rule is that "redirects are cheap" and unless they are actively harmful then they will stay. Lastly, there are a very few cases where redirects can be speedily deleted, but it is unlikely any of the criteria will apply to a redirect that's been around for a while.

In this particular case, I don't have any knowledge of the subject area, but fixing Agnes Vernon would be a good start. You might, perhaps temporarily, add some text refuting the connection to Bernice Vere, or perhaps a hatnote. Note that that in itself would be justification for keeping the redirect, redirects don't have to be synonyms, just the best we can do for that term right now. You might also target the redirect to a film she appears in, and preferably is mentioned in the article, very acceptable use for a redirect of minor actors. An article about Bernice Vere would solve all your problems, I think, but I have no idea if she is notable. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I lied. There is one case where you can blank a page: when you created the article (or redirect, etc.) and nobody else has made substantive edits to it. This is taken as an indication that you wish the page to be deleted, and you can add a {{db-author}} tag to make that explicit. Lithopsian (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

You have provided enough options to search for an alternative to my deletion.

Michael Jannetta (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

References

468.4 m(?) helium line

I see you're active on astronomy articles - this is about WR 42e (and relevant edit by me here). I can't check the source, don't know off the top of my head and Google isn't being very helpful - should that be 468.4 nm? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect I wrote that in the first place and it is definitely nm. I fixed the article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. I have no idea how I did that – absolutely not what I intended! Glad you intervened. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Hi Lithopsian, I am hoping you can answer a question about patrolling new pages about astronomical objects, since you've done a lot more of that than I have. What should be done with an article like HD 196775, which recently showed up in the New Pages Feed? It (barely) satisfies the naked-eye visibility criterion of WP:NASTCRIT, and has an HR Catalog number, so it clearly satisfies the astronomical object notability criteria. But all the article's references are to catalogs and papers that examined a large number of objects. I was unable to find a reference that dealt with this specific star in detail. So it probably fails WP:GNG. I marked the article as reviewed, but placed a tag on it indicating that it may not satisfy GNG. What would you do with an article like this one?PopePompus (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

An object meeting WP:NASTCRIT is presumed notable, but with the caveat that lack of coverage might still mean it fails WP:GNG. If I come across an article about a star with very little coverage, I look at a few things: if it unambiguously passes WP:NASTRO and it isn't a pointlessly "it exists" short stub, then it can stay. WP:NASTCRIT used to cover just about any Flamsteed star and anything above magnitude 6.5, now the criteria is anything above magnitude 6.0 and any Bright Star Catalogue star, which is virtually everything down to magnitude 6.5. In the past, a small number of fainter Flamsteed stars have been deleted, or redirected to a list. While there is no substitute for a proper literature search, a quick look at the number of related papers shown in Simbad gives an indication of notability: anything less than about 50 and there is really very little to say about the star. Another, completely unofficial, criterion is that most notable stars were included in the constellation navboxes as of about 2015, including many variable and double stars fainter than naked-eye. These redlinks have mostly been removed now, but still a useful reference. If we wanted to be strict, there are probably several hundred existing star articles that would fail WP:GNG and about half the exoplanet articles. In this specific case, I'd have no trouble marking the star as reviewed: the article has three paragraphs of text, a fully-stocked and referenced starbox, is a likely runaway star, and has a number of companions. Not exactly a blockbuster, but it at least says something beyond "I exist". If you sent it to AfD, there is a decent chance it would end up deleted, but I wouldn't bet too much on it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know how you view articles like this one. It's probably inevitable that there will be some borderline cases regardless of how carefully the notability criteria have been written. I will leave it marked reviewed, and I'll remove the GNG warning I placed on it. I guess that in marginal cases, the best choice is not to clobber someone's work and to respect the fact that someone put some work into it. PopePompus (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Completely by coincidence, I just came across GJ 1128. Now there's an article that probably should be deleted. It is in the list of star systems within 20–25 light-years, the third list out of four of closest stars, and that's about it. Should just be an entry in a list. Lithopsian (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

HMS Tyger

I have advised @Rgdem999: to restore the page at HMS Tyger which he blanked today, and to discuss the fate of the article on the talk page. I will participate in any discussion, but, as the creator and major contributor to that page, I wish to avoid any appearance of ownership of the article. - Donald Albury 22:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Tiger (1546) and Tiger (1647) are NOT spelled in the old English form of TYGER except on one website I have found. Colledge 2020 (Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy) does not list an alternative spelling to the name TIGER. The books written by Angus Konstad (Tudor Warships 2008) and by Rif Winfield (Age of Sail 1603-1714) do not show any alternate spelling. So where did this old English spelling come from as it is not found (by me) anywhere else.

Robert (rgdem999) Rgdem999 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Arguing the point on my talk page won't get you anywhere. I have no knowledge and less interest in how to spell in ship's name. If you want to have the article under a different spelling, get consensus for the move and it will happen. Go to WP:RM and follow the instructions to start a discussion. Bear in mind that the discussion may go a different way (eg. redirect to a dab page as it was before) and you'll have to accept the result. Lithopsian (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Gemma Oaten

Hi, just to let you know, the reason I blanked page Gemma Oaten, was because the redirect was not related to the subject. I did actually explain this in the edit summary. You undid my edit without an explanation. I was also planning on requesting deletion for the article although didn’t get around to it before my edits were reverted. Can you please explain what I did here? I’d hate to make this mistake again in the future. Many thanks. Blanchey (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't blank pages. Full stop. If you don't like them, change them, although think very carefully about changing the target of a redirect - you hopefully wouldn't change the content of an existing article to be about a completely different topic, but that's effectively what changing a redirect target does and you may be breaking wikilinks (check first) and external links (almost impossible to check). If you think the title is unworthy of Wikipedia, ask for it to be deleted, either speedily or after discussion. There are very few reasons to ever speedily delete a redirect, but there is a specific procedure for discussing whether one should be deleted, or perhaps re-targeted. One situation where you can blank a page, or nearly blank a page: if you are the creator and only author of non-trivial content, you can replace the article with a speedy deletion tag to request that it is removed. Did I mention, don't blank pages? Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The Gemma Oaten redirect is never going to get deleted. There is no article for that person, possibly never will be since she is notable primarily for one character (and a few other bit parts, some mentioned in Wikipedia), and the redirect is to an article that contains significant information about that character. In Wikipedia terms, that is how it should be. What makes you think that a redirect from the name of a person to an article about the most notable thing that person has done is so terrible that it needs to be deleted? There are several wikilinks to Gemma Oaten. What do you think should become of those? Just left dangling? So you're almost certainly wasting your time trying to delete this page. It certainly won't be speedily deleted, and brining an RfD is likely to be shot down very quickly; there are very few criteria for outright deleting a redirect and much worse things than this have been kept after discussions. Are you planning to write an article? If so, you don't need to delete the redirect. You might want to read up on the notability criteria before spending too much time on that - writing an article and then seeing it deleted can be frustrating. Lithopsian (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. I would just like to let you know that I now completely understand why the Gemma Oaten redirect was redirected to her soap character since that is what she is most known for. I didn’t understand this at the time since I thought it would be misleading since a soap character is different to an actor, I now know that this isn’t the case and that many other articles do it, and it does actually make sense to me now. I would just like to apologise for doing it, I meant well although I should have been familiar with the policy and MOS for that area of the encyclopedia. And for what it’s worth, since this, someone has actually expanded the redirect to a proper article, so my issue was kind of sorted anyway! But yes, thanks for being reasonable with me and not rude like another editor could have been. Have a good day. Blanchey (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit I haven't been following this page. It looks like the article was created at Gemma Oaten over a month ago and still exists, so that seems fairly settled. It lists a number of roles other than Emmerdale, but you probably knew that already. Lithopsian (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Lithopsian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/TRAPPIST-1/archive2.
Message added 08:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The sword of god

I am not quite sure why you reverted a merge of two disambiguation pages. There is generally no need to keep the history on such a simple page. Anyway I shall rebert back. Inwind (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Calling it a merge is stretching things slightly. You started with one dab page and a redirect, then ended up a few hours later with the redirect being a dab page and the original dab page being a redirect to it. If it looks like a rename and quacks like a rename, then you just skirted the rules by performing a cut'n'paste move. Don't do that because it looks like you created all the content when in fact it was just copied from another place. Good faith would put it back and move it properly. Lithopsian (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Calculation of a star's radius

Hello Lithopsian, a couple of years ago we had a discussion about the radius of NML Cygni (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NML_Cygni#Radius_1650_times_the_radius_of_the_sun). You basically said, that the Stefan–Boltzmann law is fundamental in determining the radius of a star.

In the article Westerlund 1-75 a note has been added, to explain how the radius of the star comes about using the Stefan–Boltzmann law. I think, adding this note is an excellent idea, unfortunately though, I couldn't reproduce the formula and the values used.

This is the formula from the note in the article Westerlund 1-75:

A) ${\sqrt {\left({\frac {5772}{3600}}\right)^{4}\cdot 10^{5.37}}}\approx 668.42\ R_{\odot }$

Because I couldn't reproduce the formula A) and the value $10^{5.37}$, I used one of the formulas in the article Stefan–Boltzmann law (I assume, the formula I've chosen is the right one) and the values, which I thought are appropriate to be used in the case of Westerlund 1-75:

B) ${\frac {R}{R_{\odot }}}=\left({\frac {T_{\odot }}{T}}\right)^{2}{\sqrt {\frac {L}{L_{\odot }}}}$

${T_{\odot }}=5772$, ${T}=3600$, ${L}=68000$, ${L_{\odot }}=1$

Using the formula B) and the values given, the radius that I've calculated for Westerlund 1-75, is 670 ${R_{\odot }}$, which is close enough to 668.

Now, I have a few questions and I would appreciate it very much, if you could answer them and correct me, where I'm wrong.

A) Did I use the right formula and is my calculation correct?

B) In the article Westerlund 1-75 the value for the luminosity is 68,000 in the article text (and 120,000 in the infobox). Why 68,000 instead of 120,000? With a value of 120,000 the radius would be 890 ${R_{\odot }}$.

C) How does formula A) come about and where does the value $10^{5.37}$ come from?

Thanks --Agentjoerg (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Check the latest revision history at Stefan-Boltzman Law :) Anyway, the formula you used is basically correct. Why one source over another? Always tricky. Newer usually wins out, but a specific study of a star vs a blindly-generated number in a large list can also be preferred. The current luminosity of 120,000 L_☉, added by an anonymous editor, is newer than Fok et al (2012), but is also from a thesis rather than a journal paper. You can always change it if you think it is terrible for some reason, or discuss on the article talk page if you want more opinions. It does have the benefit of actually publishing a radius, no calculations necessary, no assumptions needed, no Wikipedia rules to stretch.

The 10^5.37 value looks like a cut'n'paste error, it should be 10^4.83, to give the precise value of 668.42. It is important, in Wikipedia terms, to use a temperature and a luminosity from the same source. Calculating a radius ourselves is just about OK, but mixing values from two different sources is just too prone to error; we don't know all the different assumptions that were made in journal papers that may produce an unreliable result if they are combined. For example, the thesis used as the reference calculates the luminosity using a bolometric correct which is derived from the chosen/calculated effective temperature, and if a different effective temperature were to be used then the luminosity would be different.

Formula A is a simple rearrangement of formula B, with the assumption that L_☉ is one, which seems fairly robust. Lithopsian (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lithopsian, thanks for your explanations. Now I can see, that 10^4.83 (= 67608) is close enough to 68000 to add up nicely. Then it's also easy to see, how formula A) is derived from formula B) and everything's fine. Pure harmony. As to the values 68000 versus 120000, I would prefer to have 68000 both in the article text and the infobox. The 120000 should be in the article text only, maybe with an explanatory note. But that's my humble opinion.

Other than that I agree with you on mixing values from two different sources is just too prone to error and also on we don't know all the different assumptions that were made in journal papers. But since there are different figures out there, all of them should be included in the article. I would also agree on Calculating a radius ourselves is just about OK, as long as the restrictions, that you've mentioned, are considered. Again, just my humble opinion.

Last but not least, the change that you made to the formula ${\frac {R}{R_{\odot }}}=\left({\frac {T_{\odot }}{T}}\right)^{2}{\sqrt {\frac {L}{L_{\odot }}}}$ is certainly an improvement, compared with the previous version.

Best regards --Agentjoerg (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lithopsian, I have to come back to Westerlund 1-75 one more time. I've gone thru the articles by Fok and Arévalo and put together the different values, that I've found, in an overview on the talk page of Westerlund 1-75. You might take note, that especially for luminosity and radius, there are other values given by Arévalo than those used in the wiki-article. I'm not sure, if the other values calculated by Arévalo are of any significance (and maybe I have misunderstood the context they are calculated), so maybe you can check this out (I've given the page where the values are mentioned). It would seem to me, though, that picking one value over the other and leaving the rest out, is a little bit arbitrarily. Cheers. --Agentjoerg (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

IAU constellations

The IAU list of constellations was agreed at its inaugural General Assembly in 1922 and was published in the Transactions of the IAU, vol. 1, p. 158. The reason there are 89 names on the list rather than 88 is because they retained Argo as well as its three constituent parts, but that of course was superfluous. Skeptic2 (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No point telling me this. Provide a reliable reference that clearly supports what you put in the article and there will be no need for further discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Objection ... leading the witness

"Damn, they're quick."
~noob 67.187.73.94 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A request for comments

Hello there, and I hope you don't find this as a nuisance. I just want to request if, given that your time allows so, to take a look and have a review on the List of largest galaxies. I am aware that you participated in the delete discussion of this article way back 2018, which had ended as a redirect. I revived the list just last week with new galaxies, a reliable source list, and more defined methods to measure it, which is hopefully better than the old list.

In particular, given your experience with regards to trivial calculations in the list of largest stars, I also want to ask if it would constitute WP:OR if I could also apply a simple multiplication process in this list. Most of the sizes quoted is in the section "Quick Look Angular and Physical Diameters", which uses different distances from other sources and hence may result in different sizes. Fortunately NED provides a scale (how many parsecs per arcminute) given the distance, based on redshift, which uses modern cosmological parameters. I suppose if the given scale can be multiplied to the angular diameters instead, to revise the sizes and update to modern values?

Anyway, if you also have further comments on the list, please don't hesitate to comment here if you can, and I would be obliged to answer back and respond to any suggestions you have. Feel free to send any thoughts you have. Thank you and I hope you have a good day. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Lithopsian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/TRAPPIST-1/archive2.
Message added 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Lithopsian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/TRAPPIST-1/archive2.
Message added 12:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just in case you have pings disabled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Neptunes Rotterdam

Hello. Did you read what I wrote in the description before my cancellation? It seems to me that this is an argument for breaking this redirect. Are you okay with the soccer world cup page under "player's club" referring to a baseball team? ZERTINHO (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Don't blank pages. If you don't like the redirect, you can possibly change it to a better one. If you really really don't like it, you can ask for it to be deleted at WP:RFD. Word of advice: you'll fail, read the reasons why redirect can be deleted and you'll find they don't apply. Lithopsian (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Antares have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk.
Please do not re-add spelling mistakes immediately after they have been corrected - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Deneb

Hi Lithopsian. I am curious about why you reverted my most recent edit of the article on Deneb. I had moved all the reference definitions to the reference section near the end of the article. I routinely do that, because I think it is cumbersome to edit the main text section of an article if there are lengthy definitions embedded within the main text section (and the starbox). Do you disagree with that? Isn't it cleaner to have as little markup language as possible within a text block, so that it is more easily read when it is being edited? PopePompus (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Some people like it one way, some people like it the other. I used to like them inline, fewer issues with redundant references, less duplication, references tend to be where you can see them, but I've got a bit fed up with the clutter and now I put them in the reflist, all other things being equal. Maybe I'm just getting too old to see through all the templates to the text. The policy is clear: don't change from one method to another without consensus. That also applies to cs1/cs2, free-text or templated citations, and even quotations around reference names. If an article already has mixed styles then there can't really be much complaint about making it consistent one way or the other, even if that is because it was one way, someone made a few edits a different way, and then the original version is "fixed" :) Lithopsian (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just getting too old to see through all the templates to the text. Yeah, that's my problem for sure. I didn't realize there was a policy about not changing without consensus. I won't changed them in the future unless I come across a mixed style article. Thanks. PopePompus (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Juche

Hi, seems like you reverted my edits. I realized that was too premature to create these pages by myself without consensus, and for that, I would like to apologize. The Account 2 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Just give it time. If there is still only the one reply after a week or so then people can't really complain if you take that as the consensus. Or I suppose they can, but you'll be on fairly strong ground. Lithopsian (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Harmonize

I agree on your removal of disambiguation link on Harmonization but I differ in opinion regarding Harmonize. It is difficult when searching for the Tanzanian artist. I'm open to your reasoning.. I might be wrong Volten001 ^☎ 18:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean on the redirect? Can't have a hatnote on a redirect, apart from anything else it breaks the redirect. Plus nobody would see it. Lithopsian (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I mean on the redirect. Elaborate on that. I would suggest Harmonize redirects to the person's article since they are notable then add a disambiguation link on the page(I have added it already actually) Volten001 ^☎ 18:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree on the hatnote on the redirect Volten001 ^☎ 18:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you want to retarget the redirect to the musician. While the musician is somewhat notable, "harmonize" is a fairly common English word and it may be that the common meaning is the primary topic. I'd suggest an RfD; if you just change the target then it is likely to be reverted. If you get consensus in a discussion, then it will stick. Or the discussion might be for the Harmonization, but then you've lost nothing because any bold edit would have been reverted anyway. Existing wikilinks to harmonize are mixed, some for the musician, one not, but there might have been recent cleanup so it doesn't prove anything conclusively. Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for a nice summary and enlightening me on some areas. I will consider RfD on the redirect as per your suggestion but in the meantime, I'll leave it that way. Thanks again and happy editing. Volten001 ^☎ 19:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Lithopsian

Thank you for reviewing MLEC.

User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, I saw you reviewed this page. What does this page disambiguate? per WP:D

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Bruxton (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I see the acronym now...Perhaps it is ok. Bruxton (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton:, one title has been draftified since I reviewed it, so now only the original Movement for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda plus Miami Lakes Educational Center. I'm always sceptical that dab pages with only two entries are really helping anyone except the most completionist list-makers, but most editors seem to find acronyms are best as a dab page. Probably best just to leave it as is, or perhaps add some short descriptions if the names themselves are not sufficient explanatory. Lithopsian (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You are correct - I was wrong here. Bruxton (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Could not create a new page

I wanted to create a new page for my village Madhura but you redirected it to Another page Madu and latter also deleted my page Please stop it guys. it's my humble request don't do this Iamkraza786 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Put bluntly, your new page is trash. It doesn't cite anything, is poorly structured and formatted, doesn't have neutral language, and is less than a stub. It appears to fail GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User: Power Hacks

I notice you've reverted yet another change made by User:Power Hacks. I reverted others. Quite literally, every single edit they have made outside of their own pages has been harmful. Partly poor grammar (evidently English is not their primary language), but also a complete inability to provide citations for the factoids they introduce. Is it time for something more than simply adding messages on their talk page? Tarl N. (discuss) 18:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm loath to escalate when the edits appear to be simple lack of WP:COMPETENCE, but there comes a point when it must be done. I'll add a level 4 warning notice and then it should be obvious to anyone that it's time to buck up or get kicked off. Lithopsian (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry because I'm pessimistic - I'm too afraid of being blocked from editing. However, if I'm a optimist, I will said some good news. If I fixed my editing errors, I won't be blocked from editing. Power Hacks (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You can try to edit a page, but you *must* read and understand the policies about having reliable references first. Given that you're already neck-deep in warnings, I can understand the reluctance to continue editing as you were. New editors usually get a message about the Teahouse, a place for new editors to go where they can ask questions and get feedback about their editing. I don't see a message on your talk page, but you can still go. I haven't used it, so I don't know how responsive people are there, but it is an option for getting guided through your first few edits. You could also go a completely different way and go through articles for creation. There you can create a new article and get feedback on it without the risk of getting blocked for disrupting existing pages. On the downside, it can be (very!) slow to get feedback which may be frustrating. On the upside, you may create a completely new article. Eventually. Lithopsian (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Postal Dude

FYI: wp:EWN#User:Volkan1881 reported by User:Pppery (Result: ) Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Up The Faraway Tree

I'm looking for the discussion area on this page?

This? Although with redirects, depending on what you want to discuss, it is often more helpful to discuss at the target: Talk:The Faraway Tree. Lithopsian (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added to the talk page - since adding the page, I've since found out there are more books in the series (not written by Blyton) so I don't know how/if I should proceed. TheFatJamoc (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"R Tauri" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect R Tauri and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#R Tauri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. PopePompus (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Reversion?

I’m at a complete loss as to why you reverted my edit using WP:COMMONNAME as your justification. I didn’t change an article title, so what the heck does that have to do with me? I was simply adding the name of a nebula into the name table section on the List of planetary nebulae… so please, fully explain your thought process behind your decision to revert my edit.

Thank you.

Sykoskit (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Kudos for discussing first. Articles generally only contain one wikilink per page, although there are exceptions. Tables are specifically mentioned as an exception, but the implication is that links may be repeated for different rows, not in several cells on the same row (again, there can always be exceptions). Nebulae in the list are mostly linked under the most commonly-used name (it isn't 100%, but then herding cats never is!). A common name may be included in the list but is not linked unless it is the most commonly-used name (ie. the title of the article). Wikipedia is not here to promote the latest fancy name that someone thought up on a whim, but it is here to reflect what people are likely to be familiar with and what they need to be familiar with if they aren't already. Probably the NGC designation shouldn't be linked when the common name of a nebula is the proper name, but they all seem to be linked at the moment. Just something to consider, although mass changes should generally be discussed first. This change could be discussed on the list talk page if you think there should be a more standardised approach, or more repeated wikilinks to proper names, or less. You might also consider renaming individual object articles if they aren't titled with the most commonly-used name per WP:COMMONNAME, but I think you'd get a lot of pushback in this particular case. Lithopsian (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Distance R Aqr

The source given by you for the distance to R Aqr is an automatic generated result, which is based on the assumption that R aqr is a single star. But this is not the case for R Aqr, because the components move, the red giant is extended, and circumstellar emission interferes with the determination of the star's position. That's why the GAIA distance isn't correct, and this value certainly can't simply be adopted. The distance should be taken from a different paper like: Accurate parallax measurement toward the symbiotic star R Aquarii, where they taken into account that the target is a symbotic star. 51.154.43.165 (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss at Talk:R Aquarii. It isn't appropriate for me, or you and I both, to decide article content without input from other editors. Lithopsian (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Page Doesnt Exist

No, it's not a test (Originally it was.) But an error happened and I lost all the links from the WWII combat vehicle page so im re-doing it.

Sorry for the inconvenience, im working as fast as possible! Gun Nut perk (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely convinced what you're trying to achieve, but Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Article-space is, strangely enough, for articles ... about *things*. Not articles about nothing. Articles that don't yet exist are known as redlinks and will generally appear red. You appear to be trying to reinvent the wheel. See WP:MOS for many other hints on how to format articles, wikilinks, etc. I notice that Page Doesnt Exist has now been deleted. Please don't recreate it or a similar "placeholder" page in mainspace. Redlinks are sufficient. You can create such articles in your own user page or sandbox. Note that some list articles and some navboxes include many redlinks for topics presumed to be notable but not yet created, but the practice is discouraged. Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Previous edit war on List of largest known stars

In May of 2022, there was an edit war regarding St2-18. You stated that the reason why St2-18 was not on the list from September 2021 to May 2022 was due to the main edit warrior wanting it gone. Primefac incorrectly thought that I was the edit warrior, but He thought this because my username and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer's usernames are similar. I am sorry for what wrong I may have done during that edit war, and I am sorry for my disruptive edits during 2020.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really remember, I have to admit losing the will to live when trying to edit that article. Did you do anything wrong? Anyway, nobody really wins edit wars, everybody ends up looking bad. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I di many things wrong. I am the same user as USER:THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101, and you know I was disruptive and impulsive.—-The Space Enthusiast (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Stars

A sock had left this message on your talk page the other day. It was removed under WP:EVADE, but do you think that those stars should be made into articles, or is it just nonsense/not necessary? Among Us for POTUS (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really my field but I did a quick literature search. HE 0557-4840 maybe could be considered notable. It has more than one peer-reviewed paper dedicated to it. No popular coverage that I could find though. Except some hints of a cult fiction tie-in? Couldn't track down anything conclusive, might just be a hoax. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I had started to re-create one of their star drafts once, before realizing that it was a re-wording of a Fandom article marked as fiction, and in fact the Fandom article in question had been vandalized by them before they got globally blocked on that Fandom sock (they have a history of socking over on Fandom too, among other places), so I feel like any of their contributions that are sort of productive will still end up mostly needing to be fundamentally changed in order to be re-instated. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

IAU designated constellations

Hello. I notice that you’ve removed my contribution to the above page with the comment “a chart would be good, but not this one, as discussed”. There is no such discussion on the Talk page. Could you link me to it please? Alternatively, in the future, it would be nice if you actually fixed the issue (in this case: the chart) instead of unceremoniously deleting and destroying other people’s work. Thank you! — Timwi (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Your attitude sucks. I made a mistake, but your response was and is inflammatory. An "undo" with an edit summary is not unceremonious, and nobody's work has been destroyed. It could all be replaced literally with one click and would have been if you had responded more appropriately. For future reference, re-inserting the exact same changes that were undone by another editor, regardless of the rights or wrongs, is called an edit war and is ground for being blocked even if it doesn't reach the critical WP:3RR threshold. You are an experienced editor and should know the basics of bold, revert, dscuss. If you'd talked first, someone else, possibly me, would have fixed it and everyone would be happy. In other circumstances I'd have apologised for making a mistake, but you don't deserve it. Lithopsian (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Light-curve graph at Supernova

I was doing a little tidying at the Supernova article, and I saw that a few charts had been tagged as needing references. It looks like you made the comparative light curve plot back in 2012, and it is missing pointers to data from which it can be constructed. You wouldn't happen to have formulae/references to numbers at hand, would you? The only other image tagged as needing a reference is a qualitative plot for which a decent citation can't be hard to find (and probably exists somewhere in the article already). XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The graph is not drawn from data, but pulls together a lot of different sources. Despite the numbered axes, you might be best to consider it qualitative. There is considerable variation even amongst the most uniform such as type Ia. The following sources provide similar light curves for various supernova types: [1][2]. There are many more sources with similar light curves, but most are labelled in different units. See what you think of the sources I gave, but we might need to construct a different image. Lithopsian (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not the one who tagged it in the first place, but I think it would be OK as long as we gave pointers to sources from which the graph could be redrawn (e.g., "After Nadyozhin^[100] and Modjaz et al.^[101]"), and explain how it is qualitative. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Paixão (TV series)

I'm sorry for the cut and paste move. I didn't know that wasn't allowed. I did the same for DeepL. Coldbolt (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted that one also. Pages can be moved using the Move option somewhere on a menu, probably a More menu at the top of the page, depending on your skin, but only if you have sufficient user rights and the redirect does not have any substantive history of changes. Otherwise you have to use requested moves to get an admin to make the move, usually only after discussion, but sometimes immediately for obvious cases. Lithopsian (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Supernova (grammar)

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the following is not grammatical: "The source of energy that can maintain the optical supernova glow for months has been originally a puzzle"? I wrote it in the same style as I write scientific papers which is a little different from how I speak but it seems a pretty good sentence to me. The one I changed was IMHO stylistically jarring in a scientific text, even a popular one. Friendly Neighbour (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"has been originally". Not right at all. Sounds like someone who isn't a native English-speaker might try to construct a complex sentence. Apologies if you're not a native English-speaker. I agree the previous text was poor, jarring even, but it was at least grammatically sound. It now reads "this energy — which can maintain the optical supernova glow for months — was, historically, a puzzle", which is better although it could probably still be improved. I strive to write sentences which don't need dashed sub-clauses, but they do sometimes allow for a more concise sentence. There are probably other sentences in that section that could be improved. Lithopsian (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's true. I am not a native speaker and this is why I only asked you for the reason of the revert. But I still think the sentence needs improving. Friendly Neighbour (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Give it another try. Worst that can happen is someone reverts it. Good-faith edits aren't a problem so long as you don't get into an edit war just trying to do the same changes over and over. Maybe it just needs to be two sentences? Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I did split it into two sentences and changed "historically" which I did not like into "at first". Friendly Neighbour (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Trito

I want to move Trito (Proto-Indo-European mythology) to Trito. What's the appropriate way to do it? Nothing links to Trito to refer to Lake Tritonis. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RM. Note the difference between "technical" requests where nobody is expected to disagree with the move, and move discussions where there might be some disagreement. Lithopsian (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation project to improve PageTriage

Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Algebra extension

I have revered your revert on the article algebra extension, since the redirect is wrong; the redirect to the unrelated topic. Until the move discussion is concluded, it should be fine to have some content, which is not wrong anyway. I have also added a ref. —— Taku (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

One blue link per entry

Hello Lithopsian. Thank you for making {[diff2|1143552366|this}} change, I forgot about that until I saw your edit. Can you by any chance point me to a relevant bit of MOS or policy so that I can add it to my bookmarks? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The starting point for all things related to DAB page formatting is MOS:DAB. Most of it is fairly obvious, but it can be an interesting read on some of the fringe areas. The specific section about one blue link is MOS:DABBLUE. Lithopsian (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll definitely be memorizing DABBLUE. There's so much to know on-wiki that, from time to time, we forget some little things. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited

Hi, I am unsure why you undid my edit about Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd.

1. The company is a separate entity to the TV Channel (Use Channel 4 & ITV as comparisons) as the TV Channel is one division of the company.

2. Furthermore, the page had already been created, it was just set up as a redirect, and I simply gave it content. While I admit, I hadn't got round to correctly crediting the original author, of some of the content, this did not justify deleting everything.

Whilst I do believe that this was incorrect move on your part, I am happy to discuss it before I revert it to my edit as I do not want to get into an edit war over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandos1 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The content you created was mostly content that was already at the redirect target. That put it in two places. Plus it was written by other people, not by you, and there needs to be some mention of that. See WP:SPLIT for appropriate methods of taking content *out* (don't just duplicate it) of one article and into another, often new, article. First consider whether a split is appropriate. Just because you think there is some subtle difference between a redirect title and the target article title doesn't mean it *must* be split. Information can be aggregated under one title if it is sufficiently related and works in context. Lots of micro-articles can become little more than dictionary definitions and don't help the reader. Of course, any new article must meet notability guidelines just as if it was being created from scratch. Information that may be appropriate as a paragraph in a larger article may lack the notability required to be in its own article. In this case, there are specific guidelines for company notability.

Good practice would then be to get consensus for the split. Other editors may have different opinions about the merits of a particular split, and hopefully a solution can be agreed that satisfies most people. The end result might even be something you hadn't thought of. You can be bold and just attempt the split straight out, but if there is any opposition at all, even trivial or seemingly perverse, then discuss it. If the opposition really was in poor faith or bad judgement then you'll quickly get agreement from other editors. When performing the split, take note of how to give attribution for content that was previously in the other article and so not created by the person performing the split. Then usually summarise the split content, probably in its own section and with a hatnote to the new article. Detailed information at WP:SPLIT. Lithopsian (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I understand and have already acknowledge that I hadn't got round to crediting the original author, you seem to be missing the key points of why I made the original edit.

To use you words ' First consider whether a split is appropriate. Just because you think there is some subtle difference between a redirect title and the target article title doesn't mean it *must* be split. '

I specifically made that edit due to the fact they should be two separate articles as they are two separate entities and as I showed by referring you to ITV vs ITV1 & Channel Four Television Corporation vs Channel 4, direct comparables that would agree with me, therefore the need for a talk page is unnecessary as precedent would support my decision.

Your point ' Information can be aggregated under one title if it is sufficiently related and works in context ' doesnt apply here as the parent company is a separate organisation that manages more than just that channel and therefore has a different history. If anything Channel 5 (British TV channel) should be fundamentally edited (which I am happy to do) so it focussed purely on the channel and not the activities of the parent company.

I appreciate you enforcing good practice on editors such as myself with a short history on here, however I believe I have clearly demonstrated that this doesnt apply here.

That being said, I await to here your thoughts before I proceed further.

TIA Chandos1 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

also, apologies for some horific spelling errors in that last message, I was very tired when i wrote this :) Chandos1 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes not a problem. How to proceed is very easy: start a split discussion. The right solution will, probably, be agreed and then nobody can really complain when it happens. Of course the consensus might be not to split, but then that's the whole point of having a discussion; one person can easily be wrong, even two people might just be missing the forest by being too focused on one tree. I find it best to put in some thought up front about why the split should happen, although if it is a really obvious case then people will likely support it naturally. Be patient: arguing with every reply after the fact just gives an impression of desperation and annoys editors - other editors will quickly spot if a particular reply seems invalid. Consider the relevant policies, especially WP:ORG in this case, but also general WP:SPLIT guidelines, and quote them in your proposal. Lithopsian (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not wild on your point about arguing with every reply (which I can imagine was your intention lol) I will put a post on the talk page about separating the two (and hope you will support :) ) Chandos1 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The WP:Split article doesnt indicate how long you should wait to gage opinion on the proposed split. Are you able to ellaborate? Chandos1 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A week is a typical time to wait on a proposal, but OK to wait longer and certainly don't try to shut off ongoing discussions. If there isn't a lot of interest, you could try pinging the relevant project talk page. It seems like a reasonably well-watched page though, a number of people will have seen the proposal. At some point you can just take no replies as no objection, maybe after a couple of weeks. Lithopsian (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, thats really helpful Chandos1 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your revert of constituency page

Dear Lithopsian. WP:RM may not solve problem. Let me explain. According to ECP website, "According to the Delimitation of Constituencies Act, 1974, the constituencies for elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies are to be delimited after every census." Now you revert current constituency, which is officially created after 2017 Census of Pakistan, to older one that was created 1998 Census of Pakistan. Both have different areas. I am living in this area so I can understand this. This is not problem of move. Page was wrongly redirect. I am reverting your edit, hope you will not mind.Ameen Akbar (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism on Constituency pages of Muzaffargarh Punjab, Pakistan.

Hello . Hope you're doing well. I have seen recently that an account named User:امین_اکبر is messing with articles of Muzaffargarh District of Punjab, Pakistan. He is reverting articles without any reason. I request you to please stop him for doing that. Regards User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"EXor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect EXor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § EXor until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Super Pang

I'm here if you'd like to discuss the WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT edits I have done to Super Pang. Thanks! —Flicky1984 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop trying to cut and paste the content of one article into another. Just don't. Also, don't consider a page move that has been discussed and rejected, twice, to be uncontroversial enough that you should be boldly doing it without further discussion. If you think that third time will be lucky, see WP:RM. Lithopsian (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind you reverting the WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT edits, but please be aware that there were new additions, citations, reviews of worth made afterwards that will be lost. —Flicky1984 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added back the lost changes, no worries. May I suggest considering edits that may be lost when clicking undo in future. As I am sure you appreciate losing edits is disruptive and goes against the recommendation to assume good faith. Cheers —Flicky1984 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that your changes got lost, but edits made after a page move often only apply to the page under the new name. Also, they aren't in the history of the page that was blanked so can only be retrieved and re-applied manually. Just for reference, WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT does not describe what you have been doing. It describes an article being turned into a redirect to an existing page, possibly with some content being merged (ie. effectively deleting a page), possibly not. It does not describe the process of cutting the entire content of an article into what was previously a redirect to that article in an attempt to rename the article. See WP:CUTPASTE for reasons not to do this, and don't try to read into it that cut'n'paste moves can be "fixed", therefore they are OK. You already know about WP:RM which is the correct way to rename an article that you cannot move properly yourself, but should note that when a discussion opposes the move you probably need to drop it instead of looking for ways to get around the consensus. Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info, that clears a few things up. I will in fact try a WP:RM in future, because last time the claims that the Buster Bros. name is more common were unsubstantiated. It's very easy to see this is not the case, with a cursory search, using Google Trends, or period references. I am not sure why I didn't ask for sources last time. As you know, a WP:RM is a big task and given the results of my edits today, I need to be more prepared for it. —Flicky1984 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"V361 Hydrae" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect V361 Hydrae has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 28 § V361 Hydrae until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Supernovae

Which part of the reference to the unseen ca1900 Milky Way supernova do you consider to not be a reference?

If there were no advances in telescope technology between Kepler's 1604 supernova observations and 1900, you have a hell of a lot of revision to do. By 1900 there were extensive photographic records being made, surveys for high proper motion, variable stars (the Cepheids were being studied, if not understood) were a subject of research, including supernovae, and stellar catalogues were reaching the millions. Yet with that effort, a supernova in the Milky Way WAS missed. My bet is that, between ca1900 and today there are other supernovae that we have missed, and still haven't found SNRs for. You are propagating an over-optimistic expression of hope, at considerable variance with the observed facts - which I referenced. AKarley (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Unseen, check. 19th century, hardly "modern" despite the invention of the telescope: no high-cadence transient surveys, no space telescopes, no infra-red telescopes, not a single 5m telescope, let alone multiple ones twice that size. "Your bet", original research. "Oft-pronounced opinion", needs at least one citation, presumably an "oft" number. I'm only propagating what is in the references, as you should. There must be something reliable out there discussing the predicted numbers of supernovae vs the fact that we haven't seen them. Who knows, it might even say "oft-pronounced". Lithopsian (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop interfering with |Pentax 67

I respectfully invite you to stop interfering with the edit to Pentax 67. You are badly mistaken to treat the 6x7 and the 67 as the same camera. It is not. One is Asahi Pentax. The other is a Pentax. Two separate companies made them hence the name change to distinguish them. The two companies are separate legal entities and must be treated as such. Only a qualified lawyer would understand and appreciate the importance of "legal entities"

The cameras are the same series of 6x7cm cameras but stand alone products. One replaced the other. Some parts like the film counter, film advance assembly and shutter cocking mechanism is not backwards compatible.

The appearance of the 6x7 and 67 is totally different. I will arrange photography and insert them. Only the silhouette is similar. It is this that causes confusion. Opcouk (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

WR140 edits

Hi Lithopsian, I am a PhD candidate in communication studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). My research focuses on amateur astronomers who process data from Space Telescopes and share their pictures online. I noticed you contributed to the WR140 page at the same time that an amateur published a picture of it on Twitter that got a lot of attention. I'm investigating the flow of information related to this image and I wondered if you would be willing to discuss your contribution with me. Let me know DeChamberland (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, although I don't think I made any edits directly related to this image. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

YY Draconis and DO Draconis

Regarding your unilateral move of this topic: you had plenty of opportunity to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#DO Dra or YY Dra? Yet you chose not to do so. Why is that? Praemonitus (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I either didn't notice the discussion or didn't remember it. Such things tend to pass me by as they usually come to a sensible conclusion. No need to get angry about it. I moved the article because YY Draconis and DO Draconis completely fails WP:COMMONNAME, but it is easy enough to revert the move if that's what people want. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I did notice what SIMBAD said, but I'm skeptical that it is a reliable source for the object type as I've seen mistakes made and we have no idea who is adding that information. If we were going by WP:COMMONNAME, then the article would be called YY Draconis as that is the more common name used in papers. We chose the original name as the matter appears unsettled and it is a useful compromise that best represents the article content. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Elena Filatova

Hi! Why did you revert my edits? There is the article and why it needs to be redirected? Salazarov ^(chat) 14:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a formal discussion about the article and the unanimous decision was to delete it and redirect to the Chernobyl article. Not even merge, although presumably there was a brief summary already in the redirect target article. Such decisions are considered, if not 100% binding (there was a previous discussion over 10 years ago when the news was fresher and at that time it was decided *not* to delete) then at least as requiring further discussion before reinstating. There is clearly some opposition to unilaterally reinstating the exact same content that was deleted by agreement, so you need to gain some consensus before it will happen. The correct procedure for such a decision where there is some content about the subject at the redirect target would be a WP:SPLIT. Carefully consider whether anything has changed since the AfD discussion, or whether any of the arguments put forward to support deleting shouldn't apply. Read the criteria for splitting out content from an existing article and whether they apply in this case. Consider expanding the content in place, with reliable references to show that there is substantial notability and enough to say to make it worth splitting. You could also work in WP:DRAFT or your sandbox if you want to have a complete standalone article to demonstrate. Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Discord invite

Hey there. Congrats on being a very active new page patroller this month. You're doing great. If you want to hang out with other NPPs, consider joining us on the NPP Discord. Discord is text chat/chat room/instant message software that can be really fun. If not no worries. Thanks and see you around :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Red Zone

Hello, still new (after many year) to wiki editing. Don't understand your removal of the Red Zone edit in regards to Canadian government and politics as not linking to other pages while keeping several other entries that likewise have no links to other pages. Scotthutcheon (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

All the other entries have (blue) links to an existing Wikipedia article. Some of them don't have links directly to an article with a title similar to "Red Zone", but to a related article. This is sometimes acceptable, see MOS:DABSHORT. An entry with no link at all is useless. Disambiguation pages exist purely for disambiguating between existing Wikipedia articles, and in very rare cases articles in foreign Wikipedias or articles that have not yet been created (see MOS:DABRED). Also, descriptions of dab entries should be a sentence fragment sufficient to allow the reader to distinguish which articles they want, not the lead paragraph of the article (see MOS:DABSHORT). Entries which are obvious do not even need a description. Lithopsian (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree and adapted entry to be shorter and connect to exact same UK mechanism Purdah Scotthutcheon (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're still missing the point of disambiguation pages. They are to *disambiguate* between Wikipedia articles that could be considered ambiguous wrt the given term, no more and no less. It is not for lists of *everything* relating to that term, with or without a description or definition.

So ... there is, so far as I can tell, nothing in Wikipedia about the Canadian use of "Red Zone" (presumably not capitalised unless it is named after Ms. Red Zone?) as a pre-election blackout period, so there is nothing to be disambiguated. If there is something, somewhere that refers to this usage, then that page could be included on the dab page, either by a redirect, a redlink (plus blue link to the related article) if the topic is notable enough to have its own article eventually, or as a mention plus a link to the related article. The question to be asked is: "is someone searching the "Red Zone" interested in getting to a particular page. If so then it should be on the dab page. It seems like nobody searching the "Red Zone" wants to go to Purdah (pre-election period). MOS:DABMENTION specifically states that articles that do not mention the dab topic "should not be linked to in the disambiguation page". Readers might want to go to a Canadian election page of some sort, but I don't see quite where we might send them that is useful. Elections in Canada might be expected to say something, but I don't see that it does. Perhaps it should? Or somewhere else? Lithopsian (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You destroyed my Bible Numerics work?

I am wondering your view point, if you do not mind supplying of such thinking? M0YVE (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Where to begin? First, your collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS included no reliable references at all. As such, it is subject to being deleted at any time. Given that the entire article had no references, I returned it to the redirect that was there previously. Now ... before you go out and try to recreate the article with some sources to back it up, we have an article on essentially the same topic: Biblical numerology. It is a relatively comprehensive and well-sourced article and it is hard to imagine that we need a duplicate of it. You are welcome to try and create a better article, but if this is your first new article, I'd recommend using the articles for creation process, or at the very least working in draft (eg. Draft:Bible Numerics) until you have something ready for show. One last thought, as it is not a proper name (I'm guessing not a bible named after Bishop Numerics?), Wikipedia convention would name the article Bible numerics. Lithopsian (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources exist tags

Hey, while I appreciate you backing me up as far as the validity of the {{Sources exist}} tag on Don Ramon, IMO it’s not worth the effort to edit war such a tag over the initial editors’ objections—my intent through the tag is to notify editors who worked on the article that it isn’t up to standards so that they don’t get the wrong idea going forward, and to make my NPP assessment of the article clear in the page’s history so that it’s clear I did my due diligence as a reviewer. If the initial editor wants to act defensive or disregard the notice that’s their prerogative—we can save the more heavy handed enforcement for when they’re actually adding content that breaks guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. IMO, nearly everything that particular editor is doing breaks guidelines. I suspect it is only a matter of time ... Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Supposed copyright issue: Kiks Tyo

Hello Lithopsian. Just reaching out as you recently marked the KIKS TYO article as a potential copyright violation.

However, this article is not in violation of any copyright. It is a modification of the original KIKS TYO Wikipedia article which was soft deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIKS TYO. Undeletion of the article was requested in order to add sources, it was draftified to Draft:KIKS TYO to give one time to improve the article at 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC). Please see here Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#c-UtherSRG-20230706105000-Yakiton-20230706093500

NOTE: The Kiks Tyo Wikipedia article was first created on 14 September 2007‎. All other sources on the web that may be similar, including but not limited to https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO seem to have taken their content from various iterations of the Kiks Tyo Wikipedia article since that time.

Further, in the "references" portion of the article at the supposed content owner website https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO, it clearly cites, lists and links to what was the original KIKS TYO wikipedia article.

Please see the bottom of the page on https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO where it says:

"References KIKS TYO Wikipedia" (Text) CC BY-SA

Lastly the https://alchetron.com/ domain was not in existence until 2013-08-05. Again, the original KIKS TYO Wikipedia article is from 2007. Here is a link to the KIKS TYO Wikipedia article as archived on 2012-7-1 prior to the https://alchetron.com/ domain's creation which proves that the https://alchetron.com/ site took its KIKS TYO content from Wikipedia: https://web.archive.org/web/20120701234005/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIKS_TYO

As per the above evidence, and without a doubt, the copyright status of the text of the current Kikz Tyo Wikipedia page has been clarified. The text that has been modified is originally from Wikipedia, nowhere else. All content of the Kiks Tyo page should be restored and some type of notice left so that this issue does not come up again. Thank you! --Yakiton (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Not a wiki-clone that I'd seen before. So the section I deleted can go back in as is? Do you want me to do it? Lithopsian (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I'm quite new to editing on Wikipedia, so I thought that you may be able to remove the copyvio message on the article, or is that something I can do? I didn't want to violate protocol. Any help you could offer in that regard would be appreciated. Thanks again! Yakiton (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Best to leave the tag in place until it is formally closed by the people that work on these things. It is possible to remove the tag, and not strictly prohibited, but the actual copyright infringement case will stay open without the fact being obvious. You have already posted the explanation of why it isn't an infringement and most likely someone will close it in a few days. Lithopsian (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Competence and competence (disambiguation)

Hi there, Lithopsian. I am curious, how can I start writing about competence without it being in the context of human resources. The competence page seems to be hijacked by disambiguation links and the formal disambiguation page is a redirect. Looking forward to hearing from you. Infogiraffic (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A little harsh to claim a dab page has hijacked anything; it was there long before you decided to write an article and is there specifically because there are multiple potential meanings for competence, with none of them considered to be a primary topic. Specific to your question, it is highly unlikely that whatever you want to write about is more important and relevant than all the other possible meanings put together, so the dab page probably stays right where it is. If you really thing that your new meaning should be the primary topic, then you could open a discussion on that, but seriously I don't think you should go there.

So, you want to write an article. What is it about? A typical title would be something like Competence (your meaning) (eg. Competence (human resources), but obviously with a different term in the parentheses), and you can add an entry to the disambiguation list for it. If you have the article all written and ready to go, which it seems like you do, then you can just create the page, assuming you have page creation rights. If you don't have those rights, then you can work in your sandbox and then ask for the article to be moved when it is ready. Or you can work in draft and ask for the article to be moved. You can work with articles for creation to make sure the article is ready for prime time, although it can be a bit slow. Lithopsian (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the primary topic to me in this way. I wouldn't say that I'm creating new meaning here. I think there are a lot of authors whose fields of expertise cannot be summarized in parentheses. Competence (in general) as a page name doesn't sound right to me. It's in the same way that the pages for Belief, Data, Information, or Knowledge don't have parentheses. That's why I believe that a metamorphosis of the page Competence would be the best way forward. Does this change anything from your perspective? Infogiraffic (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

B416 (supergiant star in Triangulum Galaxy)

Dear Lithopsian, the star M33-013406.63 merits well, just by sheer luminosity, its own page (“one of the most luminous stars in the Local Group”, it's in a neighbouring galaxy). The estimates in the lead paragraph (between 3 and 10 million Suns) give a broad range, that seems OK, since quite some modelling enters here, and the issue single vs double star is probably still under discussion. I checked Ref M33-013406.63#cite ref-kournioitis2018 2-0 which discusses the possibility that the star is a binary, giving the estimate log L/L_Sun = 6.67, i.e. 4.68 million Suns, for the primary star. The temperature is assigned with the words “... we exceptionally fixed its temperature at T_eff = 30000 K, in agreement with the late-O spectral type of the star from the literature." In List of most luminous stars, the luminosity is given as 4.677 million Suns, that's the same number within rounding errors.

So just to put the numbers in the "starbox" to the latest values, I suggest to cite Kourniotis2018 rather than M33-013406.63#cite ref-humphreys 3-0, quote the luminosity 4.68 million Suns, and for the radius estimate quote the formula sqrt((5772/30000)**4 * 4.677e6) = 80.06 rounded to 80 R_Sun (Notę a). That way, the number of significant digits seems OK. No need to provide three lines to bracket the result, I would say. That's what I did in the last edit. DieHenkels (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to put the data for both components. But the Stefan-Boltzmann formula gives, when I evaluated a radius of about 210 sun radii for the B component ... quite amazing. A typo in the calculation leading to about 40 sun radii? DieHenkels (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

210.2 R_☉? Not sure how I got 45. The numbers in the note actually seemed to be correct, they just don't evaluate to 45. It actually comes out to 212.6 R_☉ with the exact numbers in the note, so maybe that should be tweaked to either use the more precise luminosity or explicitly round. There is a template {{Solar radius calculator}} which does the calculation directly from the log(L), but of course you still have to put the right numbers in. Lithopsian (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Bruh

Why did you delete the subspecies article, bruh? I thought it would be allowed the same way as the panther tigris tigris article one, bruh. KungfuMantis (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Panthera tigris tigris was controversial and arguably still doesn't add much to the main species article - in any case WP:OTHERSTUFF. A one-line article is almost never of any use unless you have immediate plants to expand it. In this case, the species article has more than one line about the nominate subspecies (and the other) and is much more useful. The place to discuss a WP:SPLIT is at Talk:Anolis cristatellus; who knows, maybe people will be keen on the idea although to me it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:WHENSPLIT. Lithopsian (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Andrew North

can you help me get that entry on track? The journalist has that name, and should be findable under that. I understand someone else used that name also, among various pen names. Hundnase (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say try Andrew North (journalist). However, moving the redirect to that title makes a rare old mess. It hides attribution and you left behind a redirect at Andrew Norton to your new article. I've just edited the redirect back for now, since there isn't a lot of attribution to worry about, but seriously if you don't know what you're doing might be best not to do it. Lithopsian (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"King of the United Kingdom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect King of the United Kingdom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § King of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. . This listing also covers Queen of the United Kingdom. You are being notified because you have contributed to one or both of these pages in the past by changing or setting the redirect target. Thank you! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Manchester City (disambiguation)

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

A disambiguation page is not required. All these entries are covered by a hatnote at the primary topic article.

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) 08:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The Christmas Cottage redirect to Christmas Cottage

The two movies are way different and should not be referred to each otherSavolya (talk) Savolya (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe you. Still, don't blank pages, not even redirects. What are you hoping to achieve? Lithopsian (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Christianity in Georgia

I just created the redirect Christianity in Georgia (U.S. state), so it would not longer be red on the dab. If you are against the dab, the only other option would be to move Christianity in Georgia (country) over the redirect and use a hatnote (i.e., make the country the primary topic). Right now, the base name is WP:MISPLACED. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I was against a dab containing only one entry with a blue link, although a redirect and hatnote is often best when there are only two options. It's odd that the article was initially created with a disambiguated name and a redirect at the root when there was nothing else with a similar title. Anyway, now there are two. I don't know if either of them is a primary topic. The state title is a redirect to a short section which covers all religions, but is may prove to be a more popular destination on English Wikipedia. The country article is fairly complete, but possibly going to get less readers, although a quick peak at its pageviews shows a surprising number of hits. Lithopsian (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, something pulled me away for a bit right after I made the dab, so I didn't make the redirect before you went to review it, hence you seeing the MOS:DABRED issue you saw. Normally I'd agree WP:ONEOTHER makes the most sense, but there is a lot of resistance to making a Georgia article the primary topic when only the country or state are covered, e.g. the still ongoing RM at Talk:List_of_leaders_of_Georgia_(country)#Requested_move_11_July_2023. Here I think a dab makes sense because even though we only have an article for the country, I don't see a primary topic, and the section I've redirected to is the best bet currently for the topic related to the U.S. state. I also wouldn't expect an RM to move it to the base name to gain sufficient support. I'll go ahead and re-create the dab, but let me know if you object and I'd be fine boldly moving the page and adding the hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Gyurkovicsarna

This still has the Afd tag on the article. That is one of the Afd closes I've seen. You should reopen it and let an admin close it properly. scope_creep^Talk 00:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but an admin got to it before I woke up this morning. I tagged the talk page, so I think it is all done now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Page move reverts

I took your requests not at face value, but in spirit. Please double check what I've done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for fixing my request. Lithopsian (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Redlinks

I'm not sure what was problematic regarding this edit. Redlinks are good! They prepare the encyclopedia to incorporate future articles without those articles getting lost as orphans, and spur the creation of articles too. They shouldn't really require explanation; "foreground halo star" sounds like something that should be an article, and that the text should link to there; therefore it should be a wikilink, red or not. Do you disagree? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't find that to be a credible or notable topic. The adjective "foreground" is arbitrary and entirely context-dependant, so effectively meaningless. It certainly doesn't identify a distinct class of objects. If such an article was created I suspect I would nominate it for deletion, although who knows, maybe it would come with a compelling set of credible references to establish notability.

Halo star, on the other hand, would be a possible article: it describes a specific and distinct (although not always easy to delineate!) class of stars. There is currently a redirect halo star to a small section in spiral galaxy, although only a handful of uses of it. A quick search suggests many more could be added. The phrase "foreground halo star" on the other hand occurs just once (actually twice, but it is the same text copied verbatim into a parent article). Perhaps "halo star" should be the wikilinked text, and it wouldn't even be red. Lithopsian (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Haya Kay Rang

Hello! I'm not sure if you noticed this, but I wanted to let you know that this redirect you patrolled had been G5'd twice in the past, and this time was re-created by the same sock-puppeteer as the last time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Gone now, again, but I can't help thinking it was a valid redirect, from a (probably) non-notable TV show to the barely-notable TV channel it was on (although the existing article doesn't mention the TV series). Now there are just redlinks dangling. I'm planning to recreate it with a target of List of programs broadcast by ARY Zindagi, but just checking with everyone first. Were you the CSD nominator? Lithopsian (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I was the nominator, yes. They made a couple other redirects to pages where the programs were never mentioned. I forget where the previous target was; I don't think it was the list of programs, though. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Pleiades

Pleiades has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Gaia data

Hello Lithopsian, I have noticed that you have recently reviewed and improved many of my newly created astronomy articles. I appreciate the help, but could you please tell me where you find the Gaia DR3 data for the stars? (Including luminosity, mass, parallax, radius, spectral type, etc.) I am curious for the source and it could significantly help me use better and more official sources in my future article creations. Thank you, and I hope to be beneficial to the astronomical community on Wikipedia! 2003 LN6 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Gaia data is available in a number of places. I use VizieR because it is convenient and Simbad links to it automatically. If you go to VizieR, you can query against data release 3 using a source ID, an object name, or coodinates. Note that the default settings of 2 arc-minute squares will return you way too many hits from Gaia, so restrict it to something like 2 arc-seconds (although that can be tricky with high-proper motion objects unless you have coordinates for the right epoch). The result will just be a main data row (hopefully just one), look in the top left corner of the page for other tables that may contain data about the object; paramp is probably the most interesting. If you have trouble, from Simbad, you can pull up a page of basic data for most bright-ish objects and there will be a link to the relevant Gaia DR3 row, and many other VizieR databases. Click the icon next to the relevant identifier. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. 2003 LN6 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)