Jump to content

User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your submission at Articles for creation: Zhang Di (volleyball) has been accepted

Zhang Di (volleyball), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ralf Brockhausen translation

Hello, just moving this discussion here from WP:PNT#Ralf_Brockhausen. This discussion is about a machine translation of Ralf Brockhausen from German Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor:, please don't do this again unless you're able to translate it properly. Cleaning a bad translation is often harder than just translating it from scratch and this page already has a massive backlog. Please follow WP:TRANSLATION next time--Jac16888 Talk 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jac16888: Thank you for your response and suggestion, I will work to minimize adding to this page. The template Template:Rough_translation appears to cover instances of this (it covers translations 'generated by a computer') and the article was tagged appropriately (according to it) and, following the template directions, I posted in here. The article also includes a link to the original article on its talk page as well as in my original post here to assist with checking the translation. The translation makes sense in English, however, I recognize that things can be lost in translation. As for the page being backlogged, that is unfortunate and I regrettably cannot help with translation aside from Google translate or similar services.

Also, for some reason your ping didn't show up in my notifications and I only saw your response when happening to check this page. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: please just promise not to post machine translations on purpose again. It gives a sense of "Here is a machine translation which took me and Google Translate two seconds to put on Wiki, so my job here is done. I'll now leave it up to y'all to clean up my mess." See also WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: @Jac16888: That was not my intention to give the sense of that and my sincerest apologies for that. I do not blindly just use Google translate. I do read it over as well for anything that looks like blatant translation errors (nonsense when translated or does not make grammatical sense) as well as fix wiki links etc. With that said, I will take greater care/caution in the future and most likely stick closer to what I normally write and assist with/finish, sports and video game related articles. I just wanted to help with the history related topics as history is one of my passions/interests, specifically World War II era (which the articles have been). Again, my apologies as that image you illustrated was not my intent. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my 2¢ as well. I realize you just wanted to help, and I wanted to explain why google translation is a bad idea, and why, imho, fixing up blatant translation errors afterward is even worse. The problem is, that machine translation sometimes gets the facts wrong, even completely backwards, so if someone comes along and fixes up the grammar, syntax, and style so it reads like proper English, this masks the fact that a machine translation took place which may have garbled the facts and introduced complete misstatements. If you see a machine translation from a language you're not bilingual in, the best thing to do is flag it, not fix it up.

That said, we can certainly use your help on the Translation project, and there are plenty of things you can do that don't involve speaking a language. Feel free to add a section to the Talk page at WP:PNT and volunteer. For example, if you find an article in an area that interests you on German Wikipedia that we don't have, add a link to it at the Talk page, and say you'll help on the scaffolding (non-translation) aspects of porting it over, and see what happens. Thanks again for your contributions, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you for understanding and explaining that. I in no way meant to come across as an ass, I was only intending to help and following template instructions. I will take up your suggestion :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
One possible angle on translations: if an article is in another language and is too long to manually translate in the time you have, focus on just trying to establish the key facts about the subject, and make sure you have at least three citations, and create the new article in English, then use the Template:Expand language to mark it so other readers know they can use the German/Portuguese/Japanese Wikipedia version if they want more info or to expand the English version. I do this a lot when I think the topic needs coverage on English Wikipedia but I don't want to manually translate eight paragraphs. Just make sure you have sources for the basic facts, and you're good to go. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@MatthewVanitas: That is a really good suggestion! Thanks :D Only issue is that I don't speak any other languages fluently (other than English of course, which I am a native speaker of) and my French is pretty rough haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No apology necessary, it's clear where your heart was. And Matthew's idea is a very good one, too. Just because some other WP has an eight-paragraph article, doesn't mean we have to. Sometimes just having a stub, is all you need to get other folks interested, who will then lend a hand and start improving it. Btw, when creating a short article like that, it is helpful to other editors if you can add some Categories, a relevant Portal, and a stub indicator, so please do add those, even, or especially, to any short articles you create. And, don't forget to visit a few other related articles and establish some links back to your article, so it doesn't remain an orphan. Another good thing you can do with a small stub article you create, is advertise it at a relevant Project. For example, it didn't take me a minute browsing the Project directory, to find the World War II task force, and if you listed your stub article on the discussion page tab there, I'm sure it would attract some attention from like minded editors. If you click the Members tab, you can add your name to the list (over 1,000 members!) and they even have a nice little badge you can add to your User page.
Btw, if you speak a little French and want to keep it up, or improve it, drop by WP talk:PNT and say you want to buddy up with someone doing a French translation (which I do, btw, hint, hint...) and you can work on scaffolding while they do the content translation part. Or, you can always work on your own on the scaffolding of other French articles being translated. In any case, the occasional exposure to French, even without actively translating it yourself, will maintain what French skills you have, and start to build them up. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: :D I added stub tags to it that were relevant and also 'advertised' it within the discussion page and added myself as a member of WikiProject Military history. Thank you for pointing out the World War II task force, I joined it and now have badge on my profile :D I will work on back links once I find any articles that would apply.
As for the French translation thing, what do you mean by scaffolding? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
By scaffolding, I basically mean, everything that isn't running English text. I.e., everything other than § 2. Body at MOS:ORDER (including the entire footers section); and besides that, within the body section, transformation of all references into untranslated <ref>s copied directly from the source article so as to wipe out any machine-translated <ref>s, and recast with citation templates from en Wikipedia. None of that requires foreign language knowledge (although a bit of knowledge helps when doing the <ref>s) and is a huge help when translating articles. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: oh, okay. That makes sense now :-). Could I tag along with you some time? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why don't you poke around and see if you can find an article on French WP in an area you're interested in, or a narrow subject area on English WP that you'd like to work on that you think has some missing articles that ought to be added. I've worked on some WWII stuff, mostly in the areas of Vichy and the Holocaust (they call it Shoah). I've also noticed that fr WP has a lot of Buddhism-related articles that we don't, in case you happen to be interested in that; for example, I translated 70,000 Character Petition which is a fascinating story, and was completely missing on en WP. Try the WWII Project that you're already a member of, and compare that with the equivalent French Project, or click the Portal tab there and check out fr:Portail:Seconde Guerre mondiale, or try some of the en portals like Portal:Military history of France and related ones. If you find an article you'd like to work on for en WP, drop me a line on my talk page. Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Madness?

I wonder what led you to Draft:Hans-Hermann Sachenbacher to which you applied a speedy tag. If you are feeling so inclined, you may care to see that there are a few other drafts by Mad7744 of similar vintage and similar length. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@RHaworth: I just found it via the random draft link on Wikipedia:Drafts. As for their other drafts that are years old, some do not have the AFC template on them so what should I tag them as? Also, why did you name this section Madness? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Why name it Madness? Perhaps you did not see the name of the user whose work we are discussing. The section name was a joking reference to that and was not meant as any reflection on you or your actions. Draft:Hans-Hermann Sachenbacher did not have an AfC tag. You tagged it with {{db-reason|Draft has not been edited since 28 October 2015}} and I accepted that tag. So why should any of the other pages in draft space created by Mad7744 require treatment different from that? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@RHaworth: My apologies, I didn't clue in there (sick ATM) and that is a good pun. I did not remember what I had tagged it with and that is why I asked. Thank you for posting what I tagged it with, that is a big help for future. I will definitely tag more of those articles ASAP so be on the lookout for the db-reason submissions ;-) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Poking my nose in, but I wonder how many of them could be saved? Cf., Draft:Günther Zaag. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 11:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I am looking through them and creating ones that can be saved. So far I have only done 2 or so but will do more later today. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping SandDoctor! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: you are very welcome! So far I have created 2, Wilhelm_Bisse and Ralf_Brockhausen but as I do more I will add them here User:TheSandDoctor/Published_Articles#History_related. Yes, I am creating new ones and nominating Mad's once they are created for deletion for probably about half (or less) and the others I will complete their's and move. Others I just nominate as Google does not contain any useful information, even on other language wikis and nothing about them I could verify. I will be doing that (moving them) as I want to be fair and acknowledge the work they have done, however, I am putting far more work into them then they ever did, thus why I am creating some of them myself, since my stats are fairly low and since I put 99% of the work into them. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
TSD, that's fair enough cetainly! If you made them good enough for mainspace, that's what's important. Good work! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks for the complement and I think they are good starters on the main namespace (the ones I have created) and invite you to take a look at them and see for yourself/help out if you wish. I am glad that I am not the only one that sees what I plan to do as fair. :D I even helped them out and cleaned up their talk page significantly (created archives for them) as their page had well over 100 entries and was a pain to scroll through. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Example of 'Deleted edits' on X-Tools.

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @RHaworth: To expand on the original point, my goal in nominating drafts etc for deletion is an attempt to clean up the draft namespace of the number of abandoned and unsuitable articles within (ads etc) and helping users who made user pages in the wrong spot (by moving them to the correct ones) as well as publishing articles. I have a question for you RHaworth, does an article that is nominated for deletion (and then deleted) count as a deleted edit on something like xtools? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@RHaworth and TheSandDoctor: If I can poke my nose in again, is it this? (Here), in my case.)

@RHaworth: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi You are 100% correct Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and feel free to continue, you seem to answer quicker than I can haha :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSandDoctor (talk • contribs)

Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!, from its old location at Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!. This has been done because the all of the article content appeared to refer to a different video game, which could be confusing to Wikipedia readers. Please feel free to continue to work on it at the new location. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: My apologies for that! Didn't realize it was created in the main article namespace at the time, I thought it was in Draft:. Thanks for your help and for catching that! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Things to improve at Video game walkthrough

Your article meets basic requirements now, so I've approved your Draft. It still won't show up on Google hits until it's been reviewed by New Page Patrol, so there will be a slight lag in its discoverability until then (they're kinda backlogged).

A few suggestions on things to improve:

  • What is the history of VGWs? Is there any agreed-on "pioneers" in the movement who really got it started, maybe even in the pre-YouTube days? Do scholars/journalists identify any particular year where the movement first appeared, or first took off? That would be a huge point of context to add.
  • You can't link to external-links in the body of the article, so for terms that don't have a WP article like Ali-A you just need to wikilink them and leave it a redline, not make it a link to their outside website.
  • It'd be cool to add an image, but it will be slightly tricky. You cannot simply take a screen cap of someone's VGW and post it, since they are the copyright holders. And you can't simply upload it and say "I asked Sarah and she said it's cool to post her screen cap on WP". What you need to do is check out WP:OTRS which explains how a copyright holder (like the owner of a VGW video) can release the image under Creative Commons license so it can be uploaded to Wikipedia. It has to be an official message from them right to the WP legal team, again not just personally telling you it's fine. Again, it takes a few steps to do, but it'd really add to your article; maybe reach out to any mid-level VGW celeb you know and ask them if they want to be the literal Wikipedia image representing VGWs? Someone really famous might be too busy or might have other licensing agreements with sponsors that could complicate it, but maybe someone semi-famous might be more flexible. But yeah, a good image, and/or a 10-second video clip of an example of VGW, would be a huge improvement to the article.

Nice work, you've done something rare in finding a topic that people talk about a lot but nobody has made a Wikipedia article for. Congrats! MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewVanitas: Sorry I did not reply sooner. Truth be told, I thought that I had replied actually. Thank you for the compliment and suggestions! :D Sadly I do not think there are any agreed-on "pioneers", for that definitively we are probably too late by several years (to know the answer). The history of VGWs is not the easiest to research from any notable sources haha. Thank you for the heads up regarding the external links. Thank you for the heads up regarding external links in the body section of articles and how that is not allowed and for just commenting out the content examples rather than removing them. I have attempted to reach out to a couple VGW people however did not get a response. Sadly I don't know any VGW mid-level celebrities at this point but will definitely keep my eye out for any. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominating a Draft for Deletion

User:TheSandDoctor - It seems, based on three times that you have referenced drafts that I had reviewed and declined, that you are going through drafts and are trying to have some of them deleted. Why? We have strict quality control standards in article space, such as notability and verifiability. Most of the standards that apply to articles do not apply to drafts. That is why you have to use custom rationale for two drafts that you tagged for speedy deletion that I contested and which were then declined (and so retained as drafts). As I said, A10 doesn't apply to drafts, and some of the other speedy criteria do not apply to drafts. Now you have nominated a draft for deletion via MFD on notability grounds. Notability doesn't apply to drafts. In fact, one way to deal with non-notable pages in article space is to move them to draft space to give the author time to improve them. Please don't tag drafts for either speedy deletion or deletion discussions for reasons that don't apply to drafts. If you want to help out with drafts, you can become a reviewer at Articles for Creation, and can accept and decline drafts, which only involves requesting their deletion if they are attack pages or spam. If you have further questions about drafts, you may ask me at my talk page, or you may ask at the Teahouse. Please don't request deletion of drafts for reasons that don't apply to drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I just want to say that I was not looking just for drafts you reviewed, the fact yours came up is purely coincidence and illustrates the fact that you are an active reviewer (or were at least in 2015, which is the year I was checking through for abandoned drafts). For MFD, I realize now that non-notability is not a valid reason. As for the speedy deletes you contested, I did not deliberately tag them with invalid criteria. Mainly I look for old abandoned drafts to clear out/nominate (off top of my head I think that's G13?). And I do fix up drafts routinely as well and contribute to them. I have nominated several for AFC and had them accepted as well as moving them myself (latter mainly talking of sports articles on the recommendation of reviewer User:MatthewVanitas)
Becoming an AFC reviewer is a goal of mine however I do not yet meet the time requirement (another month or so to go).
If I think of any further questions I will happily ask you. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC) TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - Enthusiasm is good, but sometimes is misplaced. Please do not nominate drafts for deletion for reasons that do not apply to drafts. G13 is fine. Lack of notability does not apply to drafts. If you have more questions, ask here or ask at the Teahouse, but please don't make more work for other volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Very true and will do. Making more work for other volunteers was not my intention by any means and I apologize for that (I was trying to do the opposite). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - Before trying to help, please check whether the way that you want to help is actually helpful. As I said elsewhere, trying to get rid of drafts is, in general, not helpful. It certainly doesn't help with storage. Nothing helps with storage. The WMF just has to buy more disks. Deleting drafts doesn't save storage. Deleting anything doesn't save storage. Please stop trying to help us get rid of drafts. Draft space is full of crud. The only policies we have to get rid of crud in draft space are G10, G11, and G13. Other than that, just leave the crud alone. Please. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Some comments

Just so you know, I am not following you around declining your speedy deletion nominations. I was reviewing speedy deletion nominations and the way I do it is to use this page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason. I then look at any of the categories on the top right box. I look at anything in the Attack category first, then move on to the Unspecified reason category. That is where I found your nominations since you didn't use one of the standard criteria. I then worked through clearing the category. The criteria you were using was not any of the valid ones listed at WP:CSD and that is why I declined them. Everything deleted via speedy deletion is supposed to fit exactly into one of the valid criteria. RHaworth's page has been on my watch list for a long time and that is how I saw your edit there. ~ GB fan 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: Thank you for clearing that up and I apologize, I did not intend to accuse you of anything, I was just noting that you had reverted a lot of my nominations today, that is all.
Your nominations for deletion of drafts were declined because they were not valid criteria for deleting drafts. They are reasons for deleting articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I do have one question for you though, for the ones were the criteria does not fit within their current namespace (mainly talking of user namespace) would it be appropriate to move them into the draft namespace then tag them with the appropriate tag or would that be 'unethical' etc? If it would be appropriate, would it work in reverse as well or? I am asking for future reference and am attempting to assist in clearing out apparently discarded drafts.
Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit: I clarified my statement on RHaworth's talk page. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It is never appropriate to move a page from one name space to another so it meets some speedy deletion criterion. If it does not fall into any of the speedy deletion criteria and you think the page needs to be deleted then the next step is a different deletion process. If the page is in user or draft space, then WP:MFD. If it is an article then WP:PROD or WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 11:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: I gathered it was not appropriate and but wanted confirmation so thank you for that :D. Thanks also For listing the other ways. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC) TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
There have been editors who have moved questionable drafts into article space in order to nominate them for speedy deletion, but that is an abuse, and normally it will be moved back to where it came from. For valid MFD reasons for drafts, see below. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: Just out of curiosity, what would valid MfD reasons be? The article already existing etc? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2017/March&oldid=1140995762"