User talk:Nick Number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Argentine writers[edit]

Under duplicate categorization rules, if a person is already in a subcategory of Category:20th-century Argentine writers, such as Category:20th-century Argentine novelists or Category:20th-century Argentine poets, then they don't go in the parent "writers" category at the same time. They're already part of it by virtue of their inclusion in a subcategory, so they don't need to be directly filed in subcategories and parent categories at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Right, but how does that apply to these three articles in particular? Syria Poletti isn't in any other 20th-century categories, and Matilde Sánchez and Hebe Uhart are only in Category:20th-century Argentine women writers, which is non-diffusing. Per WP:DUPCAT, they shouldn't be removed based on that. Nick Number (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bearcat: I don't mean to be contrary, but I'm still not understanding this. Being in 21st-century Argentine short story writers puts her in 21st-century Argentine writers, but what puts her in 20th-century Argentine writers? She's published works in both centuries. Nick Number (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Miscounting WiR articles[edit]

Hallo Nick, I think you've already earned the "20 articles" award - you've listed two articles as your 5th, both María Sáez de Vernet and Viviana Gorbato (or was that an insurance in case the AfD managed to remove the former?). I noticed because when I added my own 4th article there were as many 5ths as 4ths, which seemed odd as I hadn't done a 5th! PamD 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: Yes, I'm not counting the former, just to err on the side of caution. I had marked it out with <strike>, but apparently that got removed at some point. Anyway, thank you for noticing and being on top of things. Nick Number (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

D2[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my edit to D2 and I don't understand why. There is no article for the band in the english wikipedia, but there is one in the bulgarian and in the romanian ones. I don't know what you mean by the article being deleted. Martinkunev (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Martinkunev: Hi. If you browse to D2 (band), you'll see a notice that the article was deleted in 2006, with a link to this deletion discussion. I don't know what the previous content of the article was, but evidently it didn't establish the band's notability. Rather than adding the entry back to the disambiguation page immediately, it would be best to recreate the article, being sure to include reliable sources to ensure that it meets notability guidelines. Nick Number (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Number: I see. This was 12 years ago and I would argue the reason for deletion (notability) is no longer valid. Moreover, there are other links to non-existing articles which are less notable than this one. The fact that the article doesn't exist is not a reason to not link to it. I would also argue that deleting the link is counterproductive - it doesn't improve wikipedia in any way. In this instance, what it does is waste editors' time and discourage them from contributing.
@Martinkunev: I hear what you're saying, but this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case. I took a look at the Romanian and Bulgarian articles. From what I can tell, without reading either language, the former has almost no content, and the latter doesn't have the strongest sourcing. Several of the references link to the band's own website or to interviews. I don't see any that clearly establish that the band meets any of the notability criteria. If you could create even a short stub article at D2 (band) with links to a couple of reliable sources that establish at least one of the criteria, that would be the best way to establish notability. Nick Number (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar! For you![edit]

Rosetta Barnstar Hires.png The Rosetta Barnstar
For excellent and prolific work in translating articles. Seriously, I don't know how you're translating such a high volume of articles without losing quality. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 20:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Originalmess: Whee, thank you. I don't really have any special tricks beyond just getting in a groove and repeating the same process until it's second nature. Nick Number (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Laurels for the WiR August 2018 Monthly achievement initiative[edit]

Congratulations, Nick, on creating 70 women's biographies under the August Monthly achievement initiative. As the most successful registered member of Women in Red, you have earned the award for:

Please feel free to add the box to your user page. Congratulations!

  • (You have no doubt noticed that Oceanh completed 104 new biographies, all of which I added to the lists on his behalf. While he supports Women in Red, Oceanh prefers to concentrate on writing articles rather than on participating in wikiprojects.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Oh, no, I had noticed Oceanh's name wasn't on the participants list, but I didn't know until this day that it was Barzini all along you adding the entries to the leaderboard. Wow, this is weird. We can't both have the most. Now I don't know what to think. Nick Number (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is really awkward. Maybe 104 stubs don't represent the same thing as 70 start- and C-class articles, and Oceanh wasn't officially a participant, but it doesn't feel right to say I had the most when the leaderboard says 104-70. You meant well, but it would have been better not to put entries on the list on someone else's behalf, and to have instead given them a barnstar at the end for making a big contribution that wasn't part of the contest. Nick Number (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this has been resolved successfully. Let's not complicate things.--Ipigott (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, you may feel like it's resolved. I still don't know how to feel. Nick Number (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've decided to keep the userbox, as I created the most biographies under the rules as they were initially established. I still don't know why you posted articles for someone who wasn't participating. This makes it look like I finished second, though I'm getting the prize for first, and Oceanh gets a prize, but not the prize they would have earned if they were playing, which they weren't. It's a real dog's breakfast of a finish. Nick Number (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I am really sorry you feel that way about it. I thought you made a fantastic contribution, translating lots of lengthy articles from Spanish. It was also good to see your focus on writers, coinciding with one of the priorities of the month. While most of your biographies were Start class or higher, most of Oceanh's were fairly short stubs on sports people, . If it's any consolation, during the World Contest last November, I tried to encourage David Eppstein to participate by listing his articles in much the same way as with Oceanh. I was very happy with the result. The main purpose of these initiatives is of course to encourage far better coverage of women on Wikipedia. Thanks to the enthusiasm you and many others demonstrated in August, I think we are moving in the right direction. As someone who also creates English versions of articles from other language versions of Wikipedia, I must say I am enormously impressed by the speed and accuracy of your translations. Your translations are certainly making an impact. I hope you will continue to translate women's biographies in the future too. You have probably noticed that one of the September priorities is Hispanic women. By the way, I noticed you added two articles under "Fifth new biography" -- so you actually created 71, not 70. (You could add one of them under "71st new biography" if you wish.) I hope these explanations show that you really deserved the award.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)