User talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2023/10 (October)
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vanderwaalforces. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Page mover granted
Hello, Vanderwaalforces. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
- Wikipedia:Requested moves
- Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell Thanks! I am so honoured that despite not meeting the first and second criteria for granting, you still considerably granted. Also, thanks for granting me the autopatrolled right. Regards! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Notability of Tushar Shelke - Request review
Hi Vanderwaalforces, Thanks for reviewing the page. As part of 'Women in Red' and '10,000 India' Projects, I have been creating articles for Red Links of the Indian sportspersons, especially women. I feel that Tushar Shelke, BLP is notable as he is a top Indian archer who won several top-3 places in continental championships and 6 of the 8 references cited are from independent secondary sources, which are reliable and reputed newspapers and portals of India and the two others are the official websites of Asian Games and World Archery. So I request that the draft be moved back to main space. thanks, David Davidindia (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidindia Hi, the Career section does not look nice. Can you make it more of prose than list? If you do that, I can help you remove promotional stuff from it and push it back to mainspace. Regards. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I will do that. Davidindia (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Have change the bullet style to narration as suggested. Kindly look into it. Thanks a lot! Davidindia (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidindia I have moved it now; although, a user with the review right will have to mark it as reviewed. Regards. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Hope a reviewer will look into it. best regards, Davidindia (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidindia I have moved it now; although, a user with the review right will have to mark it as reviewed. Regards. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Missing citation and some problems with verification
Hi Vanderwaalforces. You new article, Akengbuda, is missing a cite for "Akenzua 1997". Could you add the cite, ormlet me know what work this refers to? Also I'm having a few issue with verification. Looking at Pervy 2010 page 45 doesn't Ewuare the Great and page 56 is about herbal medication but is used to support a statement about the Benin bronzes. Could you provide quotations from the relevant pages? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested thanks for looking, I will cross-check again for possible errors. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've also just finishing checking Eisenhofer 1997 and all failed verification, apart from one but that only backed up a slither of the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think I must have messed up with the {{sfn}} template and links too, I will check, thank you for looking. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested I have now removed the entire citations that failed verification as you tagged. I will work on those spots later. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Vanderwaalforces. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've also just finishing checking Eisenhofer 1997 and all failed verification, apart from one but that only backed up a slither of the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Benin Moat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Benin Moat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Missing citation and some problems with verification
Hi Vanderwaalforces. You new article, Akengbuda, is missing a cite for "Akenzua 1997". Could you add the cite, ormlet me know what work this refers to? Also I'm having a few issue with verification. Looking at Pervy 2010 page 45 doesn't Ewuare the Great and page 56 is about herbal medication but is used to support a statement about the Benin bronzes. Could you provide quotations from the relevant pages? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested thanks for looking, I will cross-check again for possible errors. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've also just finishing checking Eisenhofer 1997 and all failed verification, apart from one but that only backed up a slither of the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think I must have messed up with the {{sfn}} template and links too, I will check, thank you for looking. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested I have now removed the entire citations that failed verification as you tagged. I will work on those spots later. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Vanderwaalforces. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- One of the sources you used to replace some of the references that had failed verification, has itself failed verification. Given this, and the conversation going on at Akure–Benin War, were your sources have also been questioned, I'm starting to have my doubts about how you use sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested We are both working hard to make Wikipedia inclusive right? I believe that's part of our aim. Maybe the way I read and understand statements is different from the way you do. But, if you think the sources do not verify the claims on the article, maybe you help me look through the sources yourself to see what you can do, because I would greatly appreciate it. Otherwise, my next move is probably to take the article back to my userspace to avoid further issues. I must admit that there are scarce information about that war on the web, as a matter of fact, the only place you can find information about it is on blogs (maybe blogs can be used to verify too?), forums, etc. The little information I have been able to get comes from journals, but, like I said earlier, maybe you could simply go through the sources yourself to see what you can do? If there is nothing you can do, then, maybe I will just have to take it to draftspace or worst, rewrite/shorten it using details that can only be verified? Thanks. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm already tied up with other work, and will be for some considerable time. Maybe it would be best to move some of these to your user space to work on. Once you have been here for six months you will meet the requirements to access the WP:The Wikipedia Library, which gives free access to many great sources. I would suggest not basing anything on what you find in blogposts or forums, the posters may be well intentioned but sticking to more reliable sources will result in better articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested Yeah, that is more reason I don't consider blogs in my creations. So, what exactly do you think I should do with the article now? Shorten it on mainspace and expand on my userspace? or... just move them entirely? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would suggest move it entirely. Working on it while parts remain in mainspace will likely lead to problems. If someone's then makes large edits to the mainspace article how do you implement them into the changes your working on in userspace? Better to take the article out of mainspace until you're ready. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested
Done, thank you so much! Plus, I really can't wait to have access to the Wikipedia Library. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested
- I would suggest move it entirely. Working on it while parts remain in mainspace will likely lead to problems. If someone's then makes large edits to the mainspace article how do you implement them into the changes your working on in userspace? Better to take the article out of mainspace until you're ready. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested Yeah, that is more reason I don't consider blogs in my creations. So, what exactly do you think I should do with the article now? Shorten it on mainspace and expand on my userspace? or... just move them entirely? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I'm already tied up with other work, and will be for some considerable time. Maybe it would be best to move some of these to your user space to work on. Once you have been here for six months you will meet the requirements to access the WP:The Wikipedia Library, which gives free access to many great sources. I would suggest not basing anything on what you find in blogposts or forums, the posters may be well intentioned but sticking to more reliable sources will result in better articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested We are both working hard to make Wikipedia inclusive right? I believe that's part of our aim. Maybe the way I read and understand statements is different from the way you do. But, if you think the sources do not verify the claims on the article, maybe you help me look through the sources yourself to see what you can do, because I would greatly appreciate it. Otherwise, my next move is probably to take the article back to my userspace to avoid further issues. I must admit that there are scarce information about that war on the web, as a matter of fact, the only place you can find information about it is on blogs (maybe blogs can be used to verify too?), forums, etc. The little information I have been able to get comes from journals, but, like I said earlier, maybe you could simply go through the sources yourself to see what you can do? If there is nothing you can do, then, maybe I will just have to take it to draftspace or worst, rewrite/shorten it using details that can only be verified? Thanks. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- One of the sources you used to replace some of the references that had failed verification, has itself failed verification. Given this, and the conversation going on at Akure–Benin War, were your sources have also been questioned, I'm starting to have my doubts about how you use sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Vanderwaalforces. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've also just finishing checking Eisenhofer 1997 and all failed verification, apart from one but that only backed up a slither of the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1818 in Nigeria
A tag has been placed on Category:1818 in Nigeria indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Benin Moat
The article Benin Moat you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Benin Moat for comments about the article, and Talk:Benin Moat/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Generalissima -- Generalissima (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Generalissima For your very cool review. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- congrats!!!!!!!!! FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @FuzzyMagma Many thanks to you for your contributions too, you know, your very first review shaped the article in that the second review by Generalissima was easier :). Thanks again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I’m glad you feel this way, and it’s all you and your willingness to improve. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @FuzzyMagma Many thanks to you for your contributions too, you know, your very first review shaped the article in that the second review by Generalissima was easier :). Thanks again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1810s in Nigeria
A tag has been placed on Category:1810s in Nigeria indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Liz Can you hold them a little longer? I intend to put the User:Vanderwaalforces/Akure–Benin War article there on Category:1818 in Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Empty categories sit for 7 days before they are deleted so you had/have a week. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Vanderwaalforces,
This article had already been moved to Draft space once so it was inappropriate to do so a second time. Please look at the page history before draftifying an article. If you think the article is still unsuitable, pursue another solution like editing to improve the article, placing an appropriate tag on the article or tagging it for deletion if that is a suitable option. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, Liz, I wasn’t aware. Thank you so much for reaching out to me :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion Mykola Udianskyi
Hey bro. Why u nominate it under g4. I first publish it. It was compiled by me from other languages Wikipedia pages of him. May you check again your decision? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Vanderwaalforces, I agreed with your speedy deletion nomination, so I deleted the page. However, Antonio Vinzaretti has questioned the deletion. Many years ago I found that there is such a wide variation in how different editors interpret speedy deletion criterion G4 that taking such pages to deletion review often just leads to pointless time-wasting arguments. I therefore adopted a very low threshold for restoring G4-deleted pages and taking them back to a new deletion discussion if the deletion is disputed. I have advised Antonio Vinzaretti that restoring the article is likely to be a waste of time as it will just be deleted at another AfD discussion, but he has persisted in wanting it restored, so I have restored it. JBW (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @JBW Thank you so much for informing me. I've played my part, you've played yours, let's allow the community to play her part. How about that? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- FYI Vanderwaalforces: some context to evade any misscommunication -> from JBW's conclusion here "...OK, I have managed to find time to check the articles [User:JBW/Nikolai Udianskyi and User:JBW/Mykola Udianskyi] sooner than I expected. Certainly your version of the article has more, and different, sources cited, and since lack of sourcing was the essential issue in the deletion discussion, there is a case for saying that the new one goes somewhere towards addressing the reason for the [former in 2020] deletion. ...". Thx all you guys for attention in Ukraine portal. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Article draftified and re-articleified
I see that you draftified an article from the title Diamondz Africa, and its creator has now moved it back to mainspace, under the title Derick Chimebere. I have checked all its references, and none of them gives anything like substantial coverage to its subject, so you may like to consider taking it to WP:AfD. If you do, please let me know, so that I can comment there. JBW (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @JBW Thank you for notifying me. I actually saw it almost immediately they moved it back on the latter title. I am just a very calm-ass who follows process and since I don't want to move-war, so, AfD has to intervene. Thank you so much, plus, I also want to let you know that you are a great and calm admin and would love to be like you when I grow up :) hehe. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @JBW You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derick Chimebere Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Dotts Media House
Hello @Vanderwaalforces Trust you've been fantastic. Please can you help take a look at this draft Draft:Dotts Media House. I'd appreciate any help you can offer. I've tried to edit out promotional language as much as I can without removing important info. I'd be grateful if you can help look and make better in any way. Thank you very much for your help on the previous article as well. Welldone bros! Olakunle Rufai (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olakunle Rufai I might not be able to check it now, but I will :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olakunle Rufai I have done some neutralisation, reworking, etc. It should be good to go. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your help. The articles reads a lot better now, can't lie. Do you think @Reading Beans can take a look to see if it's a go?
- I really appreciate! Olakunle Rufai (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olakunle Rufai, Reading Beans hasn't made an edit today, which means, she is probably not active. But, I will move the article to mainspace by myself now, as, it is good to go from my end. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- ohh great! Does it still need to be reviewed cos I'm seeing there's a redirect once it loads or it's all good as it is? Thank you Olakunle Rufai (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olakunle Rufai It is all good as is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright! Truly grateful for your help Olakunle Rufai (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contributions! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- una don try. No be small. Reading Beans (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- wia you go oo, woman of God! How di artikul be na? how you see am? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- una don try. No be small. Reading Beans (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contributions! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Alright! Truly grateful for your help Olakunle Rufai (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olakunle Rufai It is all good as is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- ohh great! Does it still need to be reviewed cos I'm seeing there's a redirect once it loads or it's all good as it is? Thank you Olakunle Rufai (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olakunle Rufai, Reading Beans hasn't made an edit today, which means, she is probably not active. But, I will move the article to mainspace by myself now, as, it is good to go from my end. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olakunle Rufai I have done some neutralisation, reworking, etc. It should be good to go. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Reverting edits to Jeff Minters page
Evening, just wondering why you reverted the edits I made last night? My edits are accurate as I own the games mentioned in the edits. 90.246.44.140 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your changes were unsourced. There was no way for me to verify if they were accurate. Regards Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
User شاب مراكشي
Hi Vanderwaalforces, given you have proposed/nominated a few of their articles for deletion, thought I would let you know about my request at User talk:Ponyo#User شاب مراكشي. Also pinging @Theroadislong given they just moved one of their articles back to draft. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- @S0091 Thanks for the notification. Ponyo has done the needful already which should make the user relax a bit. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Draftification spree
Hi Vanderwaalforces, Please take care when moving a mainspace article to draftspace. You cannot simply move well-sourced articles such as Abdul Karim Solangi, Josefine Koebe, Liu Na-ou, and so on, from mainspace to draftspace. If you are unfamiliar with Chinese, Urdu, or German language sources, then leave them for someone else to review. It is perfectly acceptable to cite local references in an English language article or to use offline books as references. Draftification should be done in rare cases, such as when the article creator has not cited any independent secondary sources or the writing is subpar. If you still believe the topics are non-notable, then consider going for AFD. However, keep in mind that if you continue this practice, you may face a topic ban. BookishReader (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- While this notification reads more like a threat, I would love to reiterate that these articles you just mentioned (esp. the Abdul one) are not notable. If they are, then the sources should prove it. I'd love to give a courtesy ping to @Theroadislong, S0091, Oaktree b, and Reading Beans:, etc., before I consider AfD, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- If I were reviewing these for AfC, I would lean accept for Solangi at least based on the Pride of Performance award but also described as "a pioneer of kinetic sculptures in the country" so a decent argument they meet WP:NARTIST though I wouldn't fault an AfD nomination to see if the community agrees. I am not familiar with the German political system but Koebe appears to meet WP:NPOL as Landtag of Hesse is a state-wide office, however, at the time of the review that along with other claims were unsourced so not helpful and a WP:BLP violation and the sources provided were poor (preliminary results are not final and her CV and website are not independent sources). With that, I can see why Vanderwaalforces moved it draft and I would have declined it at AfC due to poor sources. Based on the Lui Na-ou article at the time of review, I may have skipped because I do not have access to the sources nor can I read Chinese and the article does not make it clear how they meet notability but doing a quick Google Books search reveals in-depth coverage in multiple sources. Had I done that search, I would accept (I may have also added at least one English source to make it easier for NPP). Additional sources have since been added making it clear for English readers they meet WP:GNG (also additional sources are available on JSTOR beyond the one added) though English sources are not required so @BookishReader was not required to do so. Of course, this is just my opinion so others may disagree. Also I think BookishReader's topic ban threat is a bit over the top, not to mention highly unlikely. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- S0091 Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a balanced way. I appreciate it. Also, I didn't intend to threaten Vanderwaalforces, as this is something that will be decided by consensus. If they felt that way, then I apologize. Thanks. BookishReader (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @BookishReader I think we disagree about WP:DRAFTIFY, which is fine because many have different opinions. I take draftifying an article as "this might merit an article but based on what is provided, I do not see it meeting notability", similar to an AfC decline. To me it gives a creator another shot to improve it so a time consuming WP:AFD is not necessary. I can't speak for Vanderwaalforces, though I hope they accept your apology, but by bringing up a topic ban likely prevented the potential for a constructive discussion. I know you as much as I know Vanderwaalforces (my only interaction with Vanderwaalforces is the topic above this one) and as far as I can tell, you both have Wikipedia's interest at heart so that should be the starting place. Personally if someone disagrees with me, I find some specifics helpful rather than broad statements like sources were sufficient to support notability. Which sources? What did I miss? I might still disagree but at least I have something I can review and provide my reasoning or admit I missed/misunderstood, thus made a mistake. I hope this makes sense and is helpful. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @S0091 thank you so much for your candidness. I didn't really pick an offence, lol, I mean, this is just minor. While, since I joined this project, I have always assumed good faith (and always will), I also expect everyone to do so, especially those that has been here for a longer period of time. The point is, we are well-learned and know what we're doing, we know words and things, but it is also important we know when and when not to use them. It didn't take me time to know what "face a topic ban" means because I have read quite a number of policies and guidelines. One funny thing (at least, to me) is that, just after this began, BookishReader started to update the pages, making sure their notability is established, exactly what the essence of draftifying is. If and only if that was done while it was still in draftspace before moving it back to mainspace, we won't be here. As S0091 said, draftifying an article doesn't mean the article should not be created on Wikipedia at all, my intentions were simply "These articles are suitable", "But they aren't properly sourced", "they need more sources to establish notability", "it can be improved because there are more reliable sources online that can be used". It's just like passing through AfC, as S0091, let me not start saying what has already been said. In a nutshell, BookishReader, please know when and when not to use words, and don't be too quick in making statements, be sure your statements are almost going to turn out to be true before even considering to make them. S0091 thanks once more for your candidness. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have had some similar experience with draftifying during NPP. When I was new to Wikipedia, I used to get angry whenever an article I wrote was draftified, but, as time went on, I understood the meaning and essence of it. I am with S0091 on most of these. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- @S0091 thank you so much for your candidness. I didn't really pick an offence, lol, I mean, this is just minor. While, since I joined this project, I have always assumed good faith (and always will), I also expect everyone to do so, especially those that has been here for a longer period of time. The point is, we are well-learned and know what we're doing, we know words and things, but it is also important we know when and when not to use them. It didn't take me time to know what "face a topic ban" means because I have read quite a number of policies and guidelines. One funny thing (at least, to me) is that, just after this began, BookishReader started to update the pages, making sure their notability is established, exactly what the essence of draftifying is. If and only if that was done while it was still in draftspace before moving it back to mainspace, we won't be here. As S0091 said, draftifying an article doesn't mean the article should not be created on Wikipedia at all, my intentions were simply "These articles are suitable", "But they aren't properly sourced", "they need more sources to establish notability", "it can be improved because there are more reliable sources online that can be used". It's just like passing through AfC, as S0091, let me not start saying what has already been said. In a nutshell, BookishReader, please know when and when not to use words, and don't be too quick in making statements, be sure your statements are almost going to turn out to be true before even considering to make them. S0091 thanks once more for your candidness. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @BookishReader I think we disagree about WP:DRAFTIFY, which is fine because many have different opinions. I take draftifying an article as "this might merit an article but based on what is provided, I do not see it meeting notability", similar to an AfC decline. To me it gives a creator another shot to improve it so a time consuming WP:AFD is not necessary. I can't speak for Vanderwaalforces, though I hope they accept your apology, but by bringing up a topic ban likely prevented the potential for a constructive discussion. I know you as much as I know Vanderwaalforces (my only interaction with Vanderwaalforces is the topic above this one) and as far as I can tell, you both have Wikipedia's interest at heart so that should be the starting place. Personally if someone disagrees with me, I find some specifics helpful rather than broad statements like sources were sufficient to support notability. Which sources? What did I miss? I might still disagree but at least I have something I can review and provide my reasoning or admit I missed/misunderstood, thus made a mistake. I hope this makes sense and is helpful. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- S0091 Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a balanced way. I appreciate it. Also, I didn't intend to threaten Vanderwaalforces, as this is something that will be decided by consensus. If they felt that way, then I apologize. Thanks. BookishReader (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- If I were reviewing these for AfC, I would lean accept for Solangi at least based on the Pride of Performance award but also described as "a pioneer of kinetic sculptures in the country" so a decent argument they meet WP:NARTIST though I wouldn't fault an AfD nomination to see if the community agrees. I am not familiar with the German political system but Koebe appears to meet WP:NPOL as Landtag of Hesse is a state-wide office, however, at the time of the review that along with other claims were unsourced so not helpful and a WP:BLP violation and the sources provided were poor (preliminary results are not final and her CV and website are not independent sources). With that, I can see why Vanderwaalforces moved it draft and I would have declined it at AfC due to poor sources. Based on the Lui Na-ou article at the time of review, I may have skipped because I do not have access to the sources nor can I read Chinese and the article does not make it clear how they meet notability but doing a quick Google Books search reveals in-depth coverage in multiple sources. Had I done that search, I would accept (I may have also added at least one English source to make it easier for NPP). Additional sources have since been added making it clear for English readers they meet WP:GNG (also additional sources are available on JSTOR beyond the one added) though English sources are not required so @BookishReader was not required to do so. Of course, this is just my opinion so others may disagree. Also I think BookishReader's topic ban threat is a bit over the top, not to mention highly unlikely. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Move
Hello, please move Chitral page to Chitral (city) Thank you.Anima303 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Anima303 There is no need for that, Chitral is a city and it is currently in the right page (and has been since 2005). the (city) parenthesis is unnecessary. Although, I get why you think it should be moved, maybe you should check Chitral (disambiguation) page for list of disambiguation of Chitral. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Benin Moat
On 29 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Benin Moat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Benin Moat was built by the Edo people over several centuries, starting from around AD 800 and continuing until 1460? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benin Moat. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Benin Moat), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.