User talk:RHaworth/2014 Aug 09: Difference between revisions
ALGOL 68G - could try again |
|||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
* I have commented at [[talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research]] but I agree that other opinions should be sought at DRV. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
* I have commented at [[talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research]] but I agree that other opinions should be sought at DRV. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
Ok, sounds good. Let's see if I can figure out the official notice template, just for gins.... ok, I think that's right. [[User:Lesser Cartographies|Lesser Cartographies]] ([[User talk:Lesser Cartographies|talk]]) 09:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Deletion review for [[Bibliography of Aeolian Research A]]== |
|||
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Bibliography of Aeolian Research A|deletion review]] of [[Bibliography of Aeolian Research A]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> [[User:Lesser Cartographies|Lesser Cartographies]] ([[User talk:Lesser Cartographies|talk]]) 09:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Bibliography of Aeolian Research A|deletion review]] of [[Bibliography of Aeolian Research A]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> [[User:Lesser Cartographies|Lesser Cartographies]] ([[User talk:Lesser Cartographies|talk]]) 09:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
Eh, I spoke too soon. I can see the deletion review request here ([[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 20]]) but not here ([[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]). Can you see which bit of wikimagic I forgot to incant? Thanks. [[User:Lesser Cartographies|Lesser Cartographies]] ([[User talk:Lesser Cartographies|talk]]) 09:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Now moot. I expect we got the right result, perhaps for the wrong reasons, and that's not a bad day at the office. [[User:Lesser Cartographies|Lesser Cartographies]] ([[User talk:Lesser Cartographies|talk]]) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
== Comment == |
|||
⚫ | |||
[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]] |
[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]] |
||
Line 136: | Line 133: | ||
:'''it is an unused and unreasonably long redirect''' |
:'''it is an unused and unreasonably long redirect''' |
||
⚫ | While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila|the article's talk page]]. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Iketsi|Iketsi]] ([[User talk:Iketsi|talk]]) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
⚫ | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Iketsi|Iketsi]] ([[User talk:Iketsi|talk]]) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|40px|left]] |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
re: [[wikify]]: First I - [[tongue-in-cheek]] - apologise for only providing a dead link to the [[ALGOL 68G]] page concerned... sadly the page was speedy deleted... :-) |
re: [[wikify]]: First I - [[tongue-in-cheek]] - apologise for only providing a dead link to the [[ALGOL 68G]] page concerned... sadly the page was speedy deleted... :-) |
||
Line 166: | Line 157: | ||
#*Hmm... IMHO the article is '''also''' saved be this third G11 '''keep''' criteria... which only would mean the article should now be restored. |
#*Hmm... IMHO the article is '''also''' saved be this third G11 '''keep''' criteria... which only would mean the article should now be restored. |
||
The "speedy deletion" did cite "08:51, 27 November 2005 Lucky 6.9 (talk |
The "speedy deletion" did cite "08:51, 27 November 2005 Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs) deleted page ALGOL 68G" |
||
from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=ALGOL+68G Deletion log: ALGOL 68G]. It seems to me the ''detail'' the page was previously deleted some 10 years ago is a distraction and even potentially misleading. |
from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=ALGOL+68G Deletion log: ALGOL 68G]. It seems to me the ''detail'' the page was previously deleted some 10 years ago is a distraction and even potentially misleading. |
||
Line 177: | Line 168: | ||
Ultimately I recommend the [[ALGOL 68G]] article should be restored, and kept, and then only deleted if there is an outstanding reason delete it via a reasoned AfD. |
Ultimately I recommend the [[ALGOL 68G]] article should be restored, and kept, and then only deleted if there is an outstanding reason delete it via a reasoned AfD. |
||
So: }} |
|||
So: Please consider a restore of [[ALGOL 68G]]. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | :My netbook, even zoomed out at 75%, can't fit the whole post on to my screen. Even at full screen! Be satisfied with what's present at [[ALGOL 68]].--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<font color="#00F">Laun</font>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<font color="#00F">chba</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Launchballer|<font color="#00F">ller</font>]]</span> 19:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
:* You talk too much. I had no hesitation in deleting the article because despite it having been around for eight (!) years, no one had found any indepenent evidence that it even exists, still less, that it is notable. I have emailed you the text. If, and only if, you can provide decent refs, re-submit via the [[user:RHaworth/moans#AfC|AfC process]]. If it actually gets accepted, ask me or any other admin to restore the old version so that the text gets proper attribution. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 22:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:19, 21 July 2014
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archives
Hi. At 23:36, 5 May 2014 you deleted the Joe Montana (disambiguation) page. Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page. I am sorry, but for me is not obvious, that Joe Montana is different from Joe Montana (actor). Is there only one Joe Montana? — Diszi (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- You have answered your own question by providing a red link. Yes, as far as Wikipedia is concerned there is only one Joe Montana. (See de:Joe Montana (Begriffsklärung).) If and when either of Joe Montana (actor) or Joe Montana (musician) becomes notable enough to have an article, then an hat note can be added to Joe Montana. If both of them get articles, then and only then do we create the disambiguation page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I understand the logic of this. I can accept it. However, from enwiki I am not able to get the info that Joe Montana (actor) is different from Joe Montana. Now I know from dewiki they are different. I still think it would be useful if this information would be available from enwiki, too. — Diszi (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not to be pedantic but {{confused}} was specifically set up for such cases.--Launchballer 16:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, see if a {{confused}} tag without any link will be accepted. But it would be better if you were to create the Joe Montana (actor) article! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Rick Otton
The Wikipedia user profile for Rick Otton has been deleted. Please provide information on why it was deleted and if there's anything that can be done or changed so the page is put back up. -- Jessicamillerwbh (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- What don't you understand about "G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion"? I could also have deleted it for U5: using Wikipedia as a free host. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the guy is notable and writes about him here in a proper place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Luxaviation
Greetings, Luxaviation was recently deleted. however I do not fully understand how this article was vastly different from the majority of other aircraft operators with wikipedia pages. Luxaviation's page was not fully complete at the time, however there were a substantial number of links and references. Luxaviation is now the largest private jet operator in Europe.
Nevertheless, due to the wikipage of luxaviation being delete I am unable to update the actual logo popping up on Google searches. It would be greatly appreciated if you could assist me. Best regards, Nick Reinertz Nreinertz (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Substantial number"? There were two links both to the company's website and zero independent references. "Unable to update the actual logo popping up on Google searches" - this is gobbledgook. If you are trying to say that Google still provides a link to the Wikipedia article, then I can tell you that this will disappear within a few weeks. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted article Clipperz
Greetings, I would like to reinstate the article you apparently deleted: Clipperz . I understand that you felt the article was not proving the site's notableness, I would like to put back up an edited version with links to sources which prove that this is a known company/service; e.g. alexa rank, media articles about them, etc.
I do this because I am a user of their services for several years now and strongly agree with their company philosophy and feel they deserve wider exposure, I am not affiliated with them in any way. Can you please send me the original text? Thanks in advance. Lebanese blond (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why "apparently"? Clearly, I did delete it. Text restored to User:Lebanese blond/Sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Lebanese blond (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There are two movie actress with the same name Shilpi Sharma and Shillpi Sharma. Although, there is a slight difference in the spelling, when we pronounce this name in any Indian language, they sound exactly the same. Both are models turned actresses. There is confusion amongst which actress is who and which movie they acted and such. Please allow this disambiguation page to make it clear distinction between the two artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajannamysore (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- When there are only two names to be disambiguated we use the {{about}} tag. I have just fixed the mal-formed tag in Shillpi Sharma. There is no need for the disambiguation page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dashlane
Hi RHaworth, it looks like you were the last admin to delete Dashlane in February. The title has been SALT'd. There is a draft article awaiting at AfC which, in my opinion, is abundantly sourced with major reviews of the app. I'd like to move it to mainspace, but would be grateful if you could de-SALT the title. Thanks. Sionk (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Unsalted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Suelong Sae Ma
Hello Sir, I was just curious about this post: Suelong sae ma. From what i know he is an upcoming football player here in thailand who suffered some major injuries the past years and wanted to know more about him.
Not quite sure if i request the page to be activated again (i mean you had your reasons why you deleted it), but i'm doing a project about Thaifootball wich involves player that are half Thai. Could you kindly give me more information? Regards, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.136.138 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suelong Sae Ma should give you a clue. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please also salt Suelong sae ma.--Launchballer 21:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, i just found the source that i need it was all in thai but the a friend of mine translated it for me, if you would like to read it as well i think it was on siamsport. If that helps. Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.136.138 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Deletion
[Title width guide. Delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.]
Varsity Inc
Hi there-- I'm a nursing student looking for some information related to high school students and undiagnosed traumatic brain injuries and was wondering if the page for Varsity Inc could be made accessible? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.88.178 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- With pleasure. The entire content of the page was: "is a gay new show on espn2 fuck yea". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
deletion of WUWM from Wikipedia
To whom it may concern, the nonprofit association World Union of Wholesale Markets (WUWM) entry has at some stage been deleted from Wikipedia. Following the deletion link brings me to you here.
I would like to understand why this entry was deleted. It was created in reference and follow-up to a United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) article which explained what food wholesaling and food markets are (and WUWM collaborated with FAO colleagues at the time with regard to that article). WUWM is the only world entity to bring together nations and cities in support of, and promotion of, food markets. WUWM membership is mostly municipal management of wholesale and retail food markets. WUWM aims to help local and national authorities in their goal to provide a better service to the many millions of traders and consumers buying food from their local market. Local authorities, millions of small market traders, and the representative body for those markets - WUWM clearly do not have the logistical possibility or resources of 'supermarkets' to pay for mega advertising of a 'brand' name. Is that why our entry - and not those entries - are deleted from Wikipedia?
Traditional food markets are the oldest community service to be offered citizens, and are vital to the health not only of local economies and communities but also local food production the world over. There is much ignorance about the true and original meaning of the word 'market' in our world today. Please could you explain why you have taken the position of deleting us from Wikipedia? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.86.71 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you talking to me when your query is addressed to whom it may concern (talk · contribs)? The article was over long and, more importantly, totally lacking in independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
codeBeamer
Hi RHaworth, I just ended up on the page list of revision control software and realized that our page codeBeamer was deleted. I think your action is unfair since you didn't delete any other company from that list. Can you please explain why you decided to delete only and exclusively us but no other company with similiar entry? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvaIntland (talk • contribs) 11:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Curious that you should come to me - the only thing I deleted was a redirect at codeBeamer (software). The substantive article was deleted according to the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeBeamer. I will admit that the calls for deletion in that discussion were not exactly clamorous but kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your product is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons transfers
Hello.I see you're interested in working on the files; Therefore, I suggest that you
- Transfer this file to Commons
- work on delete these files.Thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Out of thousands of files why pick Annales … for my attention. It is a very poor quality image that deserves a decent burial rather than transfer. CAT:CSD is usually enough to keep me busy but I might go to the cst you mention if I am really bored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Fort Saskatchewan/Fort Mall
Hi. You deleted Talk:Fort Saskatchewan/Fort Mall as CSD G8. It had been restored and tagged with a {{Copied}} – see its counterpart at the top of Talk:Fort Saskatchewan – to attribute this merger. Following Fort Mall's deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Fort Mall, User:Milowent asked the closing admin User:Arbitrarily0 to restore and move it at User talk:Arbitrarily0/Archive/2010/May-June#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Mall. WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page describes the situation. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry. Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:RHaworth. The bibliography article was placed in the public domain by the United States Department of Agriculture, and I linked to the license on the talk page. I was pretty sure that was sufficient to prevent speedy deletion. Am I missing something? Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And while we're here, I'll point out that WP:Listcruft is specifically prohibited from being used as a rationale for speedy deletion. See WP:NOTCSD #14. I'll start up the deletion review. — Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have commented at talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research but I agree that other opinions should be sought at DRV. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Let's see if I can figure out the official notice template, just for gins.... ok, I think that's right. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bibliography of Aeolian Research A. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I spoke too soon. I can see the deletion review request here (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 20) but not here (Wikipedia:Deletion review). Can you see which bit of wikimagic I forgot to incant? Thanks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Now moot. I expect we got the right result, perhaps for the wrong reasons, and that's not a bad day at the office. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- it is an unused and unreasonably long redirect
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Iketsi (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Hi RHaworth,
re: wikify: First I - tongue-in-cheek - apologise for only providing a dead link to the ALGOL 68G page concerned... sadly the page was speedy deleted... :-) Notwithstanding: I am here because I note the page ALGOL 68G is gone... archive.org, and without a AfD
I reviewed the two criteria required to be meet for a WP:G11 speedy delete: There seems to raise a question about what "Unambiguous" means... Let me address the two points in G11, one-by-one.
The "speedy deletion" did cite "08:51, 27 November 2005 Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs) deleted page ALGOL 68G" from Deletion log: ALGOL 68G. It seems to me the detail the page was previously deleted some 10 years ago is a distraction and even potentially misleading. So... I am suggesting that the page was actually removed in error. Probably the deletion could have passed through the regular AfD process, I am sure that AfD has a Smörgåsbord of other means of rationalising removing articles, especially as ALGOL 68G does not commonly appear in Popular Culture. For the record and background: ALGOL 68G is the most recent implementation and - IMHO - most comprehensive implementation of ALGOL 68. This has given ALGOL 68G a degree of notoriety in various blog circles... e.g. Rosetta_Code, but do bear in mind that I am also a member of some of these blog communities, hence I am not exactly neutral. Aside: I do sometimes ponder if entire chunks of wikipedia knowledge have "fallen off the edge" simply because the actual topic contributors do not log into to Wikipedia within the 1-2 week AfD cycle or the speed-delete cycle. My estimate is such experts topic contributors would only lookup/logon to wikipedia with a frequency of less than once a year. So it is rare that an topic contributor would actually get a timely alerted of an AfD or a "speedy-delete". Ultimately I recommend the ALGOL 68G article should be restored, and kept, and then only deleted if there is an outstanding reason delete it via a reasoned AfD. So: |
Please consider a restore of ALGOL 68G. — NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- My netbook, even zoomed out at 75%, can't fit the whole post on to my screen. Even at full screen! Be satisfied with what's present at ALGOL 68.--Launchballer 19:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- You talk too much. I had no hesitation in deleting the article because despite it having been around for eight (!) years, no one had found any indepenent evidence that it even exists, still less, that it is notable. I have emailed you the text. If, and only if, you can provide decent refs, re-submit via the AfC process. If it actually gets accepted, ask me or any other admin to restore the old version so that the text gets proper attribution. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)