User talk:Kingjeff: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Cwmhiraeth (talk | contribs) →Lauridromia and Lauridromia intermedia: Tags removed |
Werner100359 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:As I understand the position, every species or genus article meets notability criteria. As to ''[[Lauridromia intermedia]]'', I consider it very well cited and think it is completely inappropriate to tag it as insufficiently referenced. The description comes from a single reliable source which is cited at the end of the paragraph. What facts in the article do you consider unsourced? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
:As I understand the position, every species or genus article meets notability criteria. As to ''[[Lauridromia intermedia]]'', I consider it very well cited and think it is completely inappropriate to tag it as insufficiently referenced. The description comes from a single reliable source which is cited at the end of the paragraph. What facts in the article do you consider unsourced? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::I have now added an additional reference to ''[[Lauridromia intermedia]]'' and additional information and a reference to ''[[Lauridromia]]'', and have removed both tags. In my view, the species article was sufficiently well referenced and did not need to be disfigured by adding a tag. With regard to the genus article, its purpose was to prevent the species article being an orphan and to provide a link between it and the family article, quite apart from the fact that every genus should ideally have its own article. There are thousands of such stub articles in the organism parts of Wikipedia, and here's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissocarcinus an example]. Finding information on genera is more difficult than finding it on individual species and I think it is misguided to go around tagging genera articles that have a single source for their information. If there was no source, that would be a different matter. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
::I have now added an additional reference to ''[[Lauridromia intermedia]]'' and additional information and a reference to ''[[Lauridromia]]'', and have removed both tags. In my view, the species article was sufficiently well referenced and did not need to be disfigured by adding a tag. With regard to the genus article, its purpose was to prevent the species article being an orphan and to provide a link between it and the family article, quite apart from the fact that every genus should ideally have its own article. There are thousands of such stub articles in the organism parts of Wikipedia, and here's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissocarcinus an example]. Finding information on genera is more difficult than finding it on individual species and I think it is misguided to go around tagging genera articles that have a single source for their information. If there was no source, that would be a different matter. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
==2013/14 Red Bull Salzburg season== |
|||
<blockquote>Please stop editing this article or at least ask for help. In the kindest words possible, you have absolutely no idea what you're doing. You've made this article a trainwreck. Seek help from other editors before continuing. Italia2006 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC) </blockquote> |
|||
That is what I have received today, can you please tell me what is wrong with my edits? --[[User:Werner100359|Werner100359]] ([[User talk:Werner100359|talk]]) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:36, 24 February 2014
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing 2014 Ottawa Fury FC season, Kingjeff.
Unfortunately Walter Görlitz has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
This is a good season article. I don't know if you want to open the "Ottawa Fury"/"Ottawa Fury FC" debate here, but I would add a mention that "a team by a similar name played in ...". I would also put the results summaries above league tables.
To reply, leave a comment on Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Lauridromia and Lauridromia intermedia
You have just placed tags on the articles Lauridromia and Lauridromia intermedia. Both are new articles just created by myself. Please could you explain what you mean. Both seem well-referenced to me and I am unsure what multiple issues the former may have. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- As I understand the position, every species or genus article meets notability criteria. As to Lauridromia intermedia, I consider it very well cited and think it is completely inappropriate to tag it as insufficiently referenced. The description comes from a single reliable source which is cited at the end of the paragraph. What facts in the article do you consider unsourced? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have now added an additional reference to Lauridromia intermedia and additional information and a reference to Lauridromia, and have removed both tags. In my view, the species article was sufficiently well referenced and did not need to be disfigured by adding a tag. With regard to the genus article, its purpose was to prevent the species article being an orphan and to provide a link between it and the family article, quite apart from the fact that every genus should ideally have its own article. There are thousands of such stub articles in the organism parts of Wikipedia, and here's an example. Finding information on genera is more difficult than finding it on individual species and I think it is misguided to go around tagging genera articles that have a single source for their information. If there was no source, that would be a different matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
2013/14 Red Bull Salzburg season
Please stop editing this article or at least ask for help. In the kindest words possible, you have absolutely no idea what you're doing. You've made this article a trainwreck. Seek help from other editors before continuing. Italia2006 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That is what I have received today, can you please tell me what is wrong with my edits? --Werner100359 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)