User talk:Schwede66/Archive 11

AFD tags

Hi Schwede66,

Apparently I've heard that DNZB entry establishes notability (this is after I placed the AFD tag). I can't find where on wikipedia it says that; would you be tell me the page? Robert4565 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert4565, this isn't entirely clear, as there are a handful of exceptions. This discussion is the most comprehensive on the topic, and gives some context. Stuartyeates, maybe we should set up a page that summarises the situation (e.g. we have a page on New Zealand naming conventions) as this comes up with some regularity. Schwede66 20:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes you should think about setting up a page that summarizes the situation. I, like many of the other editors, want to contribute good-faith edits. I don't want to have to place a tag on an article when it doesn't need one. I will look back at my edits on NZ articles to delete the AFD tag (assuming they are cited with DNZB). Robert4565 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No trouble. I've seen to the PRODs already. Schwede66 20:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my miswording; I meant to say WP:PROD instead of AFD. Robert4565 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Internet Party and MANA Movement

Thank you for your previous comments on this article's name. I have proposed to rename this article at Talk:Internet_Party_and_MANA_Movement. I invite your input. Ground Zero | t 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating different project assessments

Hi! Thanks for your message, and I'll do that in the future. It's just that I wasn't sure about other projects' assessment criteria and whether it was okay for me to do that, not being affiliated with them. Do all the different Wikipedia projects follow roughly the same assessment criteria, and is it generally acceptable to alter their assessments? — Ballofstring (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, class assessments are by and large the same across projects. A notable exception is Wikiproject ships, as they don't have class C. But you can't break their assessment, as it shows 'Start' when you assess something as C for them. I've done a lot of reassessments over the years and have never been told by another editor to keep my sticky fingers out. But I've come across a lot of pages where some of the projects are still stub class when the article has long moved on beyond that; it really does make a lot more sense to change class across all projects at the same time. Schwede66 05:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! — Ballofstring (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Electorates

I see you've been working through the electorate articles and making sure they're in shape. I thought I'd just let you know that the current lists of MPs violates MOS:COLOUR in that colour alone describes the political party members are from (not very helpful for people who, for whatever reason, cannot view or have trouble with viewing colour). See the table at Kelston (New Zealand electorate) for an idea of a slightly different layout. What do you think? Adabow (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I see. My initial reaction is that I much prefer it the way we are doing things, even if it doesn't comply with MOS. We have an article for every MP, and every MP has a parlbox, and there we do list the party affiliation, which incidentally may change over time. So for vision-impaired people, the info is just one mouse click away. What we've got is reasonably sophisticated, and can deal with things like changes in party affiliation mid-term; see this example. What do you think in turn? Schwede66 02:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that thread. I'll comment there to keep things in one place. Adabow (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nuk Korako may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• candidates/tabid/423/articleID/348342/Default.aspx |title=National names Christchurch candidates] |work=[[3 News]] |date=13 June 2014 |accessdate=20 October 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles promoting commercial entities ??

Hi, I came across a Wikipedia article for the James Pascoe Group. To my mind it reads like a prospectus, eg. the dozens of photographs of "Goldmark" store fronts. I don't really see anything of encyclopedic merit. Why should it remain in Wikipedia? Can I do anything about it?

Thanks

Steve Red660 (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, fair comment. The article itself isn't too bad, but the issue that you are putting your finger on is WP:Gallery. The collection of photos added to the article certainly do not meet the criteria in that policy. There's a bit of work required to tidy up the situation, but if you want to do that, here's what you do, and I'm happy to help with those parts where you struggle:

• The vast majority of photos included in the article are uploaded to Wikipedia, but they ought to be at Wikimedia Commons. There's a link with every photo that outlines how to transfer them to Commons. Open the photos one by one and undertake the transfer.
• I've created some categories on Commons, and you can put the transferred photos either into commons:Category:Whitcoulls or commons:Category:James Pascoe Group or commons:Category:Farmers (department stores).
• Once that's done, you can safely remove the galleries from the article; leave one photo of each chain as an example.
• I've watchlisted the article, so if anybody protests about your actions, I can weigh in.

Does that sound ok? Schwede66 06:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand elections categories

SUre, I'll get on that. I tend to copy whatever I see and that happened to be on some article I saw, so I'll fix that. spiderjerky (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to have mislinked User:This_is_Paul on the Andrew Little talk page, I've corrected it, but not sure what you intended. You may want to undo my correction. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Middle name and birthdate

I guess its standard on wikipedia so no big deal. Gav111 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessments

I'm seeing you do a bunch of assessments of some of my articles. Thanks for the hard work. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Mikael Colville-Andersen

I do not agree with your statement Schwede66 about vandalism. I put all my argumentations why this article is nominated for deletion. Read carefully and before erase my comments please follow procedure and notify me so I can justify point of view and facts . Please check all listed statements and if you disagree with them you are welcome to protect it. Thanks, Ottocycle (talk)