User talk:Kvng

Coreeda

Hey. Can you tell me more about the significant coverage? The book you linked only mentions it on 3 pages. The preview shows the paragraph starting on the bottom of one page (366) with some more info on the next one (367), and the third page mention (478) is just one sentence in the appendix. The index confirms these 3 pages as the only mentions. The rest of the book search results aren't helpful either. I don't see how that would satisfy WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. Spagooder (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A paragraph or two in a couple of sources is enough to write a competent short article. ~Kvng (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

When it's anchored by significant sources. This was only one source and it was much closer to the example of trivial coverage than significant coverage. Spagooder (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Remember, WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. WP:AFD should be used for deletions that deserve discussion. The fact that I bothered to deprod and you bothered to post here indicates that discussion is deserved. I agree that what I found is alone not enough for me to !vote keep in an AfD but my search was quick and dirty and brings us half way towards WP:42 IMO. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't controversial. Before I PROD an article, I look into the feasibility of fixing it, and I recently did so on another page. I bothered to ask you because I was under the impression that you had found significant coverage that I missed but unfortunately that's not the case. If the article deserved a discussion, its original writers wouldn't have had to resort to primary sources and a bunch of references that fail verification, and it probably wouldn't have sat in that state for years. Spagooder (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We may be using different definitions for controversial. WP:PROD is a shortcut created for deletions where no significant discussion is expected. Some editors think noncontroversial means deletions they beleive are WP:LIKELY to prevail. The bar for PROD is higher than that. ~Kvng (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We're using the same definition. I nominated with the thought that anyone applying similar scrutiny would come to a similar conclusion. Spagooder (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on my AfD experience, its a stretch to assume other editors think the same as you. ~Kvng (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about thinking the same, it's about going through the process—they would've found the same info I did, or lack thereof. The AfD still hasn't received a single comment after a week, clearly not controversial. Spagooder (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of MAC service data unit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MAC service data unit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAC service data unit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Reneumeh on User:Reneumeh/sandbox (05:18, 13 March 2024)

Hello Kvng, how do I send this article from my sandbox for review? --Reneumeh (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Utopes took care of that for you. The submission Draft:SPACEMAP Inc has been reviewed and was declined. Please make the requested improvements and resubmit. ~Kvng (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Rubyhlovett (20:51, 18 March 2024)

Hello,

How are you?

I just wrote a Wiki page that needs to go up by tomorrow if possible. I have posted it but it doesnt seem to be live. I have no experience with wikipedia so this might be very straight forward but i can't figure out how it becomes an acutal page. Hope you can help. thanks --Rubyhlovett (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rubyhlovett, I assume you're referring to Draft:Judy Hegarty Lovett. That needs to be submitted and then reviewed before it becomes an article. A couple issues though: 1/ We need to see multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the subject. You have included only one that potentially qualifies. 2/ Based on your username, it appears there may be a conflict of interest in play. Please read WP:COI. ~Kvng (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Merging Query

Hi Kvng, I saw your comments on the merging talk page and wondered if I could hear your opinion on a related matter.

Around a week ago a proposal was passed to merge Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates and Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions, among other reforms to the FGTC system. Basically both pages used to have slightly different functions, now the Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates will cover both.

Both pages have extensive archives so I'm wondering how you might approach this? Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, wondering if you saw this, I'll wait another day or two before I try something for the merge, but won't pester you further. Aza24 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aza24, we probably don't want to make any changes to the archive pages themselves. You can leave them as they are and add a notice or link at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates to explain the situation and help editors find the respective archives. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your previous objection to the deletion of Aspose.Words

Hello, I am currently proposing to delete the article, Aspose.Words, and it has come to my attention that you have objected to a previous attempt at deleting the article. I would just like to ask why, especially because there is every good reason to. Logically speaking and according to Wikipedia's policies, this article has no place in Wikipedia. Please respond within 7 days, or else the article may be deleted. Thank you.

Ztimes3 (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ztimes3, The article was proposed for deletion 30 minutes after creation. Then the article was improved by the author. I take this to mean that the author did not want the article to be deleted and therefor it is not the type of uncontested and uncontroversial deletion for which the WP:PROD process is intended. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Split rock of Horeb

I don't understand the rationale you gave as it doesn't appear correct. I saw two sources, one of which I've removed as unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present). But I guess it's done which means probably AfD if reliable sources actually discussing it rather than just mentioning it as the current source and the Newsweek one do. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately Kvng pretty much objects to every PROD tag, even for articles with literally zero secondary sources. Then you take it to AfD and Kvng doesn't ever turn up to argue in favour of keeping the article. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my guess, nice to have it confirmed. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@AusLondonder, @Doug Weller, for myself ant others like you who may be interested, I track my DEPROD activity at User:Kvng/Deprod. I do track and monitor all resulting AfDs. I participate in AfD discussions if I have something useful to add to the conversation. Even if I don't participate, I am monitoring to adjust my DEPROD criteria. For example, if I see a WP:SNOW keep, I will be more careful about DEPRODDING similar cases going forward. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Great. But I don't see how your rationale for your deprod at the article in question was correct. One source not an rs, the other a trivial mention. Searching shows much the same thing plus some doubt that the place where Moses supposedly was is there or even if it existed. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors are not required to state or even have a rationale correct or incorrect to DEPROD. I do always provide a rationale. I am not always correct. If you think the article should be deleted, please WP:BEFORE and then open an AfD and we can all discuss it there. It is unnecessary extra work to discuss these on my talk page and then again at AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

County-level government agencies

I don't see how it improves the encyclopedia to contest a seven day old PROD, uncontested by all other editors, for a county-level government agency (Adams County Industrial Development Authority), sourced only to their own website for 15 years. That article is now left in that state unless I take the time to take to AfD. I don't see how that is a positive outcome? AusLondonder (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@AusLondonder see WP:ATD-R ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you in fact removed the PROD tag from around six or seven non-notable county-level government agencies. I don't believe redirects are necessary in these cases, particularly if the agencies are not mentioned at other articles. Some of these articles have had zero page views in more than a month. They are not plausible search terms. Of course, I recognise you're perfectly entitled to remove PRODs. But for articles with little chance of AfD survival I don't see the point. AusLondonder (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@AusLondonder, I beleive these can minimally survive AfD as redirects. I don't see the point in deleting something that is being used (however infrequently) by readers (see WP:CHEAP). I agree that no mention in the proposed target is an issue but that can be addressed by improving the target article to add a mention as an alternative to deleting. Improving the target and redirecting results in a better encyclopedia than the deletion option. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kasscourse on Thomas Woodruff (artist) (19:05, 23 March 2024)

The Mary Sue is not a reliable source, and continues to push this libelous, unfounded description of this comic artwork. --Kasscourse (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kasscourse, The Mary Sue is listed as reliable but biased or opinionated so should be identified in the text and balanced with other sources. It appears that's how the material is handled in Thomas Woodruff (artist). ~Kvng (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

European Academy Award Winners List

Thanks for removing that proposed deletion. I didn't know how to go about that properly, or what backlash would ensue. (In the future, if I'm unsure, is there a place to go to inquire about such a thing?) I did a lot of work organizing the Actors section and half of the Actress section (thus far), with notes of notable firsts achievements, so that it's more than just a list of names. I'll get around to continuing that soon, as I planned to at least finish doing the actors completely. I noticed that the user who proposed deletion did make a slew of edits prior to the proposal in which (-##,###) massive amounts were removed. So it might be worth examining and restoring potentially. Just wanted to bring that to your attention as well, unless you already noticed. Anyway, if you'd like to work together on this or any other films/awards-related articles (those, + actors and singing shows, tbh, are usually my jam), happy to help in any way. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaniac86 thanks for your work on this. I do most of my article improvement work on technical articles so I doubt I'll be helping with List of European Academy Award winners and nominees. It looks like AmeriMike has legitimate concerns about the maintenance of this list, I just don't think that deletion is the best way to address those concerns and it certainly is not an uncontroversial solution. I'm curious why, having invested work in this list, did you not object to the deletion proposal? ~Kvng (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for BLARing El libro de recuerdos

My memory was I had intended to do so but ended up prodding it after doing my WP:BEFORE (and forgetting about this as an option) search to confirm there were no sources of note. Skynxnex (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Skynxnex, is there anything you can suggest we add to PROD somewhere to help remind editors of WP:ATD? ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Good question but I think this was just more an issue of me being needing to be more careful as I work through multiple things. Like I definitely would have voted redirect if it had come up at AFD. This may just be a me-thing but I think part of it is BLAR'ing is less reviewed, effectively, than a PROD (rightfully since PRODs are harder to reverse) but that means if someone wants feedback about redirecting an article it's actually a bigger process (starting a discussion on the article talk page) than PRODing an article. No proposed changes just thoughts. Skynxnex (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Samoiamo (13:35, 25 March 2024)

Hi! I’m trying to find a solution after I’ve discovered that a Wiki page covering an air accident has the incorrect flight number in the title (Wiki: Royal Brunei Airlines Flight 238), when it should be ”Flight 839” according to the committee’s accident final report which was published and cited in the “References” page. Is there a way in which I could edit the title and correct it for it to read “839” instead of “238?” --Samoiamo (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

2 other sources in Royal Brunei Airlines Flight 238 indicate flight 238. The report does say 839. Do you know why there's a descrepancy? ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Samoiamo, I just noticed you started a conversation at Talk:Royal_Brunei_Airlines_Flight_238#Article_Name_Change. I have copied my above reply there. Let's continue the conversation there. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Game engine redirects

Just as information, List of game engines has a list criteria that all entries must be WP:Notable. As such, the two redirects you've just blar'd will eventually end up at RfD as pointing to an article that does not reference or mention them. -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ferret, good point. Saw your warning too late. Prods can't be reinstated. I will keep this in mind in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethernet Exchange for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethernet Exchange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethernet Exchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DefaultFree (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

WHCR-LP

You have redirected this to defunct radio stations in New York. I presume this is accidental as the station was based in North Carolina? AusLondonder (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Corrected ~Kvng (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Waldemar Pawlak

Hi, you've removed a deletion proposition template from the First Premiership of Waldemar Pawlak article. The reason you've stated is actually legitimate in my opinion, however the topic is allready covered and the content that would suposedly be merged can allready be found in the First Premiership subsection of the Waldemar Pawlak's article. (The referencing of the section is an other issue). -- Antoni12345 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Also I would be greatful if you could help me with renaming the Second Cabinet of Waldemar Pawlak article to "Cabinet of Waldemar Pawlak", as there exists a disambiguation page I don't know how to deal with. -- Antoni12345 (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Bit order

Reverted good faith edits by Ale2006 (talk): Bit ordering is defined at the physical layer, not by IP.

Bits can be numbered 0 to 7 either starting from the most significant bit or from the least significant one. The diagram numbers bits, but doesn't explain based on which convention. That way, it requires guesswork to establish, for example, whether the version can be obtained by byte[0] & 0xf rather than byte[0] >> 4.

ale (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Diplomatic Academy of London

You de-PRODded it. Did anyone actually contest deletion? Or was it because I tried briefly to make sense of it (but failed). As I wrote at the talk page, it is entirely not notable. Not now and never was. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah actually disappointing and time wasting, this was such a clear cut case, and it was six days with no objection. AusLondonder (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I deprodded because you appeared to be asserting some sort of WP:HOAX and quality issues with the article and did not support your WP:ORGCRIT assertion in the presence of 8 sources some of which appear potentially reliable. It is better to use WP:AFD for a hoax because it produces a more durable result (prod results in WP:SOFTDELETE). Quality issues are, of course, not a valid reason to delete. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions but many editors use them as a first, low-effort attempt to delete something that actually deserves discussion. Sorry if that is not the case here but that is the reason I deproded with your not-obviously-supported WP:ORGCRIT assertion. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you really think your deprodding today was constructive? I've counted at least 14 deprods. For example Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel, a organisation that doesn't exist and has no sources? Or the multiple radio stations that you haven't redirected. Looks to me like an attempt to make a point. AusLondonder (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed 41 prods today and removed 19. See User:Kvng/Deprod/March 2024 for details on my recent WP:PRODPATROL work. Because of the high volume, I didn't have time to do any bold redirects today. I suggested the radio articles can be merged or redirected to the lists of stations by state. Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel can be merged into the farm bill that established it.

I understand your WP:POINTY concern and try to adjust my deprod behavior in the case, for instance, that many of these go to AfD and are quickly deleted. So far this month, only 24 articles I've deprodded have been sent to AfD and only 7 of those have reached a delete consensus. I watch all of the articles I deprod for 30 days and many receive improvements. So yes, I think this is constructive work. How do you defend your deletion proposals? A bad deletion proposal is the opposite of constructive. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I defend them? Well most articles I eventually take to AfD are deleted or redirected. Several of the PRODs had been endorsed by other editors and clearly with the Diplomatic Academy article another editor was concerned enough by the removal of the tag they came here to your talk. AusLondonder (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your stats don't support your assertion that most your AfDs are deleted. It looks like barely a majority. Clearly a minority if you don't count redirect as a delete. ~Kvng (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you look at articles taken to AfD this year (rather than seven years ago) they are overwhelmingly delete. AusLondonder (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 you have 23 deletions. 8 redirects. 8 keep or merge. 2 no consensus. Only 56% were cleanly deleted. I wouldn't characterize this as overwhelmingly or most. ~Kvng (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So in other words, just 6 were kept in their current form...

AfD is an appropriate venue to determine whether an article should be redirected. AusLondonder (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a generous way to look at it but it still means you were wrong at least 14% of the time. It's quite possible I'm wrong at least 14% of the time with my deprods but when I'm wrong, we discuss it. When a prodder is wrong the article just quietly disappears. ~Kvng (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're confident a redirect is the best solution, WP:BLAR is an easier way to propose that. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - one of my recent prods was also de-prodded by Kvng and is currently in AfD, and while it's a little frustrating to experience the additional delay, I think these de-proddings are valid. De-prodding is for when any editor has any objection, including objections of the form "this may be deletable but I think it deserves a full AfD discussion first". A full AfD will result in a more complete and durable record of deletion consensus. Even if we disagree with the objection, it still deserves consideration and discussion. DefaultFree (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Mryoulmamah on Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers (07:02, 31 March 2024)

How do I create a quote? --Mryoulmamah (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mryoulmamah, "Quotation marks are a good place to start" ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

ADPCM

The screenshot provided was DPCM as can be seen there is no point on the same level from the last one. GalaxyDoge72 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@GalaxyDoge72 I don't see a screenshot on Adaptive differential pulse-code modulation ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Isaac Anyanwu (09:32, 2 April 2024)

Hello King, How do I create an article about me on Wikipedia? --Isaac Anyanwu (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Isaac Anyanwu, generally not a good idea. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. ~Kvng (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from AndrewJPatrick (17:13, 2 April 2024)

Hi Kvng - Is there a way to ensure that my draft page for Canadian Climate Institute is still in the queue for review? There's a bit of a long backstory with this one, but I submitted it for review about six weeks ago. I see now that the disclaimer at the top says it could take up to two months to review, so perhaps it's on the docket but hasn't had the chance to have a review yet. For background this page was soft deleted recently. The original editor who submitted for deletion put it back as draft so that it could undergo review for publication. Since submission for deletion it's been updated to remove promotional language, update conflict of interest, and add multiple sources etc. The draft page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canadian_Climate_Institute any help or guidance here is much appreciated. --AndrewJPatrick (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewJPatrick, yes it is still in the queue. Reviews are not necessarily done in the order they are received and reviewers may pass this one over because there are 47 sources to review - a heavy lift. If I were reviewing this it would help if you could identify your WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the organization. ~Kvng (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that - will see what I can do. AndrewJPatrick (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Engschrift article - merge

Hi there,

I noticed that you objected my deletion request for the Engschrift article some days ago, and suggested instead it be merged. Once this is done, which article do you suggest it be redirected to? Engschrift refers to condensed variants of DIN 1451, Austria and Tern.

Thanks. EthanL13 | talk 19:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@EthanL13, to start I'd need to understand the relationship between Engschrift and Tern (typeface). None of this is my area of expertise so I'm not sure how much of my advice you want to be taking. For real help help maybe post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography. ~Kvng (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, I believe it's related to Tern due to the condensed (engschrift) being mentioned in Austrian traffic sign legislation. But I am rather asking what to do in regards to redirecting to the three articles it refers to. EthanL13 | talk 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@EthanL13, I guess I didn't understand the question. I guess I still don't understand the question. What do you think of my suggestion of asking typography experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography? ~Kvng (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, but I could.be wrong, it's not possible to create redirects to more than one article. But I'll ask there so. Thanks. EthanL13 | talk 10:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Rainbow Saver Anglia Credit Union

You have removed the PROD and redirected this article to list of credit unions in the United States, however the credit union is not American. AusLondonder (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I have backed it out. I'm afraid you'll need to use AfD now since prod cannot be restored once removed. ~Kvng (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)