Jlwoodwa

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Bare references

Why are you adding this template to the articles where there is no such citation. If you continue, your edits would be problematic for you Egeymi (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about my edit to Albert Reich? If so, notice that {{webarchive}} states:

This template is intended for external links. It is not designed for use as a citation template.

WP:BURL also describes URLs that have some additional information, but not enough to be a full citation, as still being "bare".

If you still disagree about the applicability of this template, then I think we should move this discussion to either Template talk:Bare URL inline or Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs. Regardless, I hope we can remain civil, and remember that both of us just want to improve Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Talk:Kim Kardashian/Archive 1 did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.

And don't mess with other's signatures in your copyediting unless something is specifically broken on the page. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I know what went wrong with the signatures – I must have pressed Edit on an older revision of that page, prior to User:MalnadachBot's linting. Sorry, and I'll be more careful to avoid this mistake in the future. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Historical top 20 companies by market capitalisation

Hello, I'm a student, who is currently writing a mathematics paper on the stock market, and finding an "optimal" strategy to beat the market consistently. To do this I need the exact same information that's in the Wikipedia article, "List of public corporations by market capitalization", but instead of the top 10 from every year, I need the top 20. I figured I'd ask you seen as you seem to have edited the article more than anyone else. Where would I find this information?

Thanks and sorry if I've done this wrong I don't know how Wikipedia really works. FinstaWiki (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Gabrieli Pessanha moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Gabrieli Pessanha. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because your article is too short, please see WP:HOW to see how to write better pages. Please use the sandbox if you want to do any more test changes. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Wafflesvarog (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Jlwoodwa,

We have hundreds of thousands of old User pages and 99.99% of them are not eligible for CSD G13 deletion. Please review WP:G13 so you understand what features have to exist for a User or Draft page to be eligible for CSD G13.

We have bots that publish daily lists of pages that are G13 eligible so it is very unlikely that you will come across a page that the bots haven't listed. Actually, if you intend to do more deletion tagging, please become familiar with all criteria at WP:CSD. Some of them are a little tricky but they are all very specific and limited. Some of the criteria only cover main space pages while others only cover other pages like Redirects or Categories.

If you have any questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you will find it very useful to start to use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion. It has a lot of very helpful features that allow you to report vandalism, tag an article for PROD, open an AFD discussion, post notices to User pages. Just be sure to set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creators" so that any time you tag a page for deletion, the page creator is notified. This is an important step in the deletion process. Try it out! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: If someone makes a draft and then blanks it, doesn't it become "Userspace with no content", meaning {{db-blankdraft}} (WP:G13) would apply? Normally I would use {{db-blanked}} (WP:G7), but that doesn't apply to userspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Piped link

Template:Piped link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hello, Jlwoodwa,

Please do not be moving other editor's User pages around. You made some pretty obvious mistakes. And you are still an inexperienced editors, learning about Wikipedia policies and practices. Above all, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate another editor coming into your User space, messing around with your pages. This is true even if an editor isn't currently active. There are just so many other, more productive uses of your time, becoming a better editor, than going through other editors' User pages. Please stick with improving articles or learning about counter-vandalism. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you really need to use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion. Especialy for reasons like G13, page creators need to know that they have made a copyright violation. Half of your work as an editor is educating other editor's about Wikipedia policies. Posting takl pages notices is a way of a letting other editors know that they have created pages with problems. Please start leaving these notifications every time you tag a page for deletion, if you don't use Twinkle, which will do this for you, then leave a personal note that you've written or find an appropriate template. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Chinese. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Advice about redirect categorization and {{R cat shell}} on its own

Hey, I saw you added {{R cat shell}} on its own at Milton Sirotta, with the edit summary of "+rcat shell". Unless your goal was to leave it for another editor to categorize, this shouldn't be done; redirect pages don't need to be categorized or have {{R cat shell}}. In general, if you're going to add it to more articles, I would recommend actually trying to categorize the articles yourself first before placing it and leaving it in Category:Miscellaneous redirects, as most aren't that hard to categorize (WP:TMR is extremely helpful for this). If you don't think there's a suitable category, don't add the template. Cheers. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"William Herbert Hobbs Distinguished Professor of Geography" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect William Herbert Hobbs Distinguished Professor of Geography has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23 § William Herbert Hobbs Distinguished Professor of Geography until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Erik Olssen article

Hi there, thanks for the changes you made to the Olssen article. I am confused as to why or how you linked all authors, so now many of them show as red in the references because they don't have wikipedia pages. Are you able to look at this please.Realitylink (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

County town

Just a question as I do not understand it. Why is the hatnote about American county seats inappropriate at County town? The Banner talk 09:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's rude for one of the participants in an edit war to {{uw-ew}} the other, but I'll assume you're just trying to start the conversation.

Preservation potential and preservation bias are significant, non-trivial, frequently-invoked and -discussed concepts relevant to several historical sciences, including historical geology, archaeology, and paleontology. Currently Preservation bias is a redirect to Taphonomy § Taphonomic biases in the fossil record, but as the concept is used outside paleontology, there should properly be an article about the general concept rather than its application to paleontology alone. A discussion of preservation potential/bias could give context such as survival bias. Per WP:REDYES: Create red links whenever a non-existent article with more information would help a reader understand the content of the article in which the red link will appear. An easy example is a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition, to help support its role for its existing context. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A happy frog for you!

	A happy frog for you!
	Thank you for creating various useful redirects. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Initials

Template:Initials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please document new templates

When you create a new template like {{Nbhairsp}}, please add a documentation page with information about the template, including a Category for the template. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And again, with {{They're}}. Please provide documentation and a category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also {{Redirect-for-distinguish}}. This is becoming somewhat disruptive. You are making work for other editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I've added documentation for {{they're}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And now {{Weren't}} and more. Please stop this disruption. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Prods

Jlwoodwa, you're proding quite a lot of articles for obviously notable subjects that haven't/hadn't been sourced, e.g. Frederick Dunlap (American football). A more productive approach be to post of list of such BLP articles missing references at a relevant WikiProject, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. I'd appreciate if you could slow down with the prods so we can catch up and get these articles sourced before any get deleted. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop nominating articles for WP:BLPPROD in such quantity. Today alone, you have nominated around 400 articles (!!!). Many of these articles have had sources that were removed through vandalism, and some aren't even BLPs! Curbon7 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait, which weren't BLPs? I thought I'd been very careful to avoid articles about bands and such. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Victor-François, 8th duc de Broglie is dead, for one. As I stated, many of these articles were also at one time sourced, but the sources were removed through vandalism. For clarification, the issue with nominating such a huge number of articles at once is that it becomes physically impossible to check each article for sources, undermining the entire point of BLPPROD. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought WP:BDP implied that people born after 1908 needed a reliable source to be established as exempt from WP:BLP (hence the existing tag) and by extension WP:BLPPROD. But [i]f there is any doubt to the applicability of this procedure to the article, then it is preferable to use another deletion process, so mea culpa.

As for the point of BLPPROD, I thought it was that it's better to have no article at all than a wholly unsourced article about a living person. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm not debating BLP and BLPPROD: that's all good and dandy, and we're on the same page. What I'm trying to say is that by nominating 400 articles at the same time, you are making the whole PROD system approach critical mass. Besides the fact that the articles are not deleted automatically by a robot (a physical admin has to check each article and click delete every time), a number of these article were at one point sourced (a small sample: Anosh Ekka, Quinten Burg, Spencer Collier, C. S. Puttaraju). Most of these nominations seems fine on paper, but it is simply the mass of them that is an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a slower tagging rate would help administrators (they can take their time if they want to!), but I agree that some of those BLPPRODs needed more examination before submitting. I'm done for now (emptied out the wholly unsourced articles from Category:Unreferenced BLPs), but if it comes up again I'll be slower/more careful. Thanks for clarifying. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries; it was a little frustrating when I first saw it, but it's not a huge deal (for example, on Ashok Uike and Radek Vondráček, it was easy enough to revert back to the last clean version). Sorry if I came across a little rude at first! Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I also plan to help find sources! I just thought it was best to tag first. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm but never again mass-nominate articles for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/MFD/etc.). It's easy with a click to tag an article for deletion but each one has to be reviewed by at least one administrator and often other editors review them as well. What can take you a few minutes to tag can take other editors hours to address. There are editors with years of experience who have done the same thing as you and have suffered a backlash for doing mass nominations so it is very murky waters for a new editor to plunge in and mass-nominate articles. Editors have gotten blocked from participating in AFDs for doing things like this

There is no hurry to delete these articles, most of them have been on the project for years, so please, don't nominate more than a dozen or so articles per day using any system of deletion we have. I don't say this as a policy guideline but as an administrator who spends most of my time on the project reviewing pages tagged for deletion. Luckily, many other editors have worked on these articles you have tagged and located sources but a week is not much time to deal with hundreds of articles. We still have 95 articles that due to be reviewed for PROD tomorrow. Please do not do this again. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

A few notes about WP:CITEVAR and other unnecessary or undesirable changes to articles

Amidst some helpful changes to H. G. Wells, your edits changed DMY dates to YMD dates, which is contrary to the {{Use dmy dates}} template that was in place, and contrary to WP:CITEVAR. The change also didn't modify the dates displayed in the article, so it was pointless. Equally pointless were your changes of page ranges in citation templates to use improper hyphens instead of the dashes that were present, per MOS:RANGE, and your lower-casing of template names. Please make changes that conform with WP:MOS and avoid making changes that are out of line with Wikipedia guidelines. There is a lot to learn here; please take some time to browse through MOS if you are going to make style-related changes. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Consistency (MOS:DATEUNIFY): Each article should use either DMY or MDY consistently, except that in references, the format used by the citation style chosen for the article is used consistently. However, the only all-numeric style allowed in citations is YMD.
— WP:DATEOVER

Don't these guidelines mean that, if citations in an article use a mixture of DMY, MDY, and YMD, it's encouraged to make them consistent – and that this need not be the same as the body's date format? (I'm not arguing, but clarifying and hoping to clear up any misconceptions I have.) jlwoodwa (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There is more to that guideline, about the first date format used in the history of the article and about gaining consensus on the article's talk page. In any event, take a look at the citation that includes "What the War of the Worlds means now" before and after your edit. You will see that your changes to the dates did not modify the rendering of the citation dates. I recommend learning more about how citation dates work and more about MOS:DATEUNIFY before you make mass edits like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

List of skeletal muscles of the human body - Historical perspectives and Links

Mr. Jlwoodwa would you elaborate why you find that the timeframe in which the observation of the muslces are irrelevant to the article? and why it is irrelevent for people to meet the concept: that what muscles we have have changed over time and will change over time, in a list of human muscles?

As well as why a

• List of organs of the human body (as muscles are an organ)

List of distinct cell types in the adult human body(as muscles are made from Cells)

• List of human microbiota(as your microbiome effect is believed to affect muscle growth https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6933299/)

Will likely not be of relevance to people looking at a list of muscles in the human body? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAb

Template:IPAb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Messing with other editor's posts

...as you did with mine here is a breach of WP:TPO. Don't do it. I see you messed with a number of posts on that noticeboard not just mine and an editor has reverted you on all of them. If you do it again it will be a fast way to get blocked. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nbhairsp

Template:Nbhairsp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Please check ISBN" template

Hi – because you recently added {{Please check ISBN}} to a number of pages, I thought you might have something to contribute in this discussion I just started. Joriki (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note that when I added the reference, I placed the peculiar ISBN in double parentheses. This means that it has been double checked already. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Have

Template:Have has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Weren't

Template:Weren't has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

WPBS ratings

When you add a rating to WPBS (e.g. [1]), please could you remove the ratings from each individual banner? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Prelude to Presents.

The R from avoided redirect reads, "This is a redirect from an alternative title for I Am Become Christmas, another redirect to the same title . Because double redirects are disallowed, both pages currently point to Lemon Demon." My underlining. As Prelude to Presents is not an alternative title to I Am Become Christmas then the template is not to used in this instance. Perhaps you'd like to see Category:Avoided double redirects to see which of us is supported in our opinions.

I have no intention of reverting you at this stage, and have earlier today given a pass to other examples while I think about it. Perhaps you'd also like to think about it, perhaps ask the opinions of other editors. Let's see if we can agree. Thanks Richhoncho (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I think "alternative title" is just another word for "redirect". Template:R avoided double redirect § Purpose states:

Some redirects should target other redirects, but that is not allowed by Wikipedia software. A redirect that targets another redirect is called a "double redirect". This redirect category (rcat) template may be used to tag redirects from alternative forms (abbreviations, disambiguated titles, etc.) of titles that are themselves redirects to broader-topic articles (whether or not marked as redirects with possibilities). To avoid a double redirect, any alternative-title redirect must also target the same broader article, and must be updated if the redirect from the more specific title is converted to a separate article.

The song Prelude to Presents would normally redirect to its album I Am Become Christmas, but the latter is itself a redirect to Lemon Demon. This is precisely the use-case of {{a2r}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You say I think "alternative title" is just another word for "redirect" but that ignores all the the other redirect templates which are for wikipedia maintenance, i.e. from other caps, unnecessary disambiguation, to/from diacritic, other punctuation etc.

You also ignore all the other avoided redirects being added which do not follow your example, 2000+ added in the last 5 weeks, some directed to the artist or discography because no album exists, but not with the r from avoided redirect added.

As far as I have seen only redirects to Lemon Demon have been categorised in the way you think is correct. Rather than a long-winded and ultimately futile discussion, would you like to take this discussion elsewhere where we might get a resolution? Richhoncho (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I'm not ignoring anything. {{a2r}} is also for Wikipedia maintenance: for instance, if I Am Become Christmas is created as an article, Prelude to Presents will automatically be placed in the maintenance category Avoided double redirects to be updated. This is good, since I Am Become Christmas (if it existed) would be a better target for Prelude to Presents. That is the entire purpose of {{a2r}}. Even if other editors are not using it, I don't think their omission constitutes WP:CONSENSUS to remove {{a2r}} from existing redirects. If you think there would be broad support for that, feel free to bring it up at Template talk:R avoided double redirect or propose its deletion at WP:TFD. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. I have been adding and using R from song for the past 10 years+ and this is the first time I have had a problem where I have done nothing wrong. I could quite easily find editors to agree with me. So, as a solution that meets both our POV I will add the albums and the song titles back into the main article tomorrow and remove the r from redirects where appropriate from the redirects. Pls confirm this is acceptable. Thanks. Richhoncho (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

PS. I also note you are changing R from song, to r to album, on Christmas Will Be Soon which cannot be right as there is NO album. I assume typo, but nonetheless... Richhoncho (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

1. I created the redirect with {{r to album}}. You changed it to {{r from song}} at the same time as you removed {{a2r}}. When I undid your edit, it reverted to {{r to album}}.
2. This is relatively unimportant, as {{r to album}} is merely a redirect to {{r from song}}.
3. Still, I think {{r to album}} is correct here. Christmas Will Be Soon is conceptually a redirect to I Am Become Christmas; for technical reasons, it must redirect to Lemon Demon, which is why {{a2r}} is used, but it is still conceptually a redirect to an album.

jlwoodwa (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, {{a2r}} would still belong on Christmas Will Be Soon, until and unless I Am Become Christmas is made into an article. You are not required to add {{a2r}} to redirects you create, but you should not remove it from redirects. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I cannot fathom your dislike of my suggestion, especially case, for example, Christmas Will Be Soon should be listed for deletion as there is no mention whatsover on the target page, or redirected to a more useful destination. IOW the redirect leads nowhere. All very pointless. If you don't like my suggestion, then the alternative would be to list all appropriate songs as unwanted redirects. This you can simply do as {{db-author}} and I can fully support such action. Richhoncho (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't dislike your suggestion. Please, go ahead and improve Lemon Demon. But {{a2r}} will still belong on Christmas Will Be Soon, as per its documentation. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

They wouldn't be A2r if mentioned in the article. As we do not appear to be making any progress on this I am now considering something I have been advised, not being mentioned in the article I believe falls under Wikipedia:R#DELETE, Richhoncho (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas Will Be Soon would still be {{a2r}}, regardless of the content of Lemon Demon, since I Am Become Christmas would be a better target for that redirect if it were an article rather than a redirect itself. This is the clearly-stated purpose of {{a2r}}. Please do not delete contentious redirects just to make a WP:POINT. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I have offered 3 alternative solutions, taken advice from a third party and I am the one making WP:POINT? Richhoncho (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I notice that you also removed {{a2r}} from Rauna (genus). Are you WP:FOLLOWING me around? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Because it was in direct contradiction of your arguments above. Richhoncho (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

How was it in direct contradiction? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Let’s start again, Category:Avoided double redirects reads, inter alia, ‘This is a maintenance category, used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia and contains non-article pages, or groups articles by status rather than subject. Do not include this category in content categories.

This is a tracking category. It builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. They are not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme.'

In other words, only errors, mistakes, miscaps etc should be included and no redirects should ever be created to be included in this category.

Although my knowledge of Jurassic prawns is precisely zero, I suspect that the categories used for the redirect Cancrinos claviger are more in keeping for what is required for Rauna (genus). Hopefully they will give you more clues to more suitable catting of the redirect than you have been intent upon. I look forward to you finding better categorisation on this issue.

You will note on the Cancrinos claviger redirect there is an option for ‘printable’ which goes back to the days when a printed version of the encyclopedia was mooted. Song titles are by default all unprintable, because, ultimately 99% of them are clutter, unlike, I think, rauna (genus).

When we have a consensus on this, perhaps we can find a consensus on those song titles. Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What part of that category description says only errors, mistakes, miscaps etc should be included? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that is is admininistration category and not part of the encyclopedia. Richhoncho (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrative categories are often placed on pages with encyclopedic content. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Exaample? Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A brief sample of Pages that link to "Template:Maintenance category" in namespace "Category":

• Category:All articles with suspected copyright violations
• Category:All articles to be split
• Category:All articles to be merged
• Category:All accuracy disputes
• Category:All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes
• Category:All self-contradictory articles
• Category:Sports stubs
• Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates from November 2023
• Category:All articles to be expanded
• Category:All pages needing cleanup
• Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical from December 2023
• Category:All articles with style issues
• Category:All articles needing copy edit
• Category:All Wikipedia articles needing context
• Category:All Wikipedia articles needing clarification
• Category:All articles needing rewrite

Despite containing article pages, these are maintenance categories, because they group articles by status rather than subject. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, as I described in my edit summary on Rauna (genus), please review Rauna (crustacean). The latter redirect holds the categories Category:Penaeidae and Category:Monotypic decapod genera. In general, each taxon should have a single canonical location for its categories. If a taxon doesn't have an article of its own, the best-named redirect should be considered canonical, and any alternative title for that taxon should be marked with {{a2r}}: both because the redirect should be changed if the taxon is given its own article, and as a beneficial side effect, to guide editors to the canonical redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Examples. I did mean redirects, which is all we have been talking about in this long thread. I am pleased to see the correct removal of A2r on your Raunu (genus), and happy to accept you have chosen the correct new cats. Richhoncho (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

PS. You have not explained clearly why a song by artist must be a direct from an album of that artist. There are 1000s of article where that is not the case. Richhoncho (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Category:Redirects to acronyms
• Category:Redirects from acronyms
• Category:Redirects to initialisms
• Category:Redirects from initialisms
• Category:Redirects from numeronyms
• Category:Redirects from Bluebook abbreviations
• Category:Redirects from ISO 4 abbreviations
• Category:Redirects from MathSciNet abbreviations
• Category:Redirects from NLM abbreviations
• Category:Redirects with old history
• Category:Redirects from other capitalisations
• Category:Redirects from modifications
• Category:Redirects from plurals
• Category:Redirects to plurals
• Category:Redirects from adjectives
• Category:Redirects from adverbs
• Category:Redirects from common nouns
• Category:Redirects from gerunds
• Category:Redirects from proper nouns
• Category:Redirects from verbs
• Category:Redirects from alternative spellings
• Category:Redirects from transliterations
• Category:Redirects from American spelling

None of these are errors, mistakes, or miscapitalizations. All of these are maintenance categories. I could continue down {{R template index}}, but I got bored after 23.

As for Rauna (genus), note that it still possesses {{a2r}}, and that the correct categories were already on Rauna (crustacean) before you started this conversation. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed merge of Portuguese man o' war and Physalia

When 2 or more articles have to be merged together, the editor who proposes the merge has to start a discussion about the merge on the talk page of at least one of the articles. Not doing so may delay the merge or lead to rejection of the proposal.

I have started the discussion on both the articles' talk pages.

Please always use WP:TWINKLE to create merge proposals, since it automatically starts the discussion, gives a textbox to add your reasons for the merge, and also gives an option to add the discussion to talk pages of some or all of the articles. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that Twinkle had a merge option. I figured it would be in XfD, like RM is, but it's actually in Tag. Thanks for letting me know. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redirect-for-distinguish

Template:Redirect-for-distinguish has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:They're

Template:They're has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Stale UAA accounts

Hey - I just processed a few of your recent reports at UAA. They weren't invalid - they were all policy violations - but I wanted to drop you a note about productive ways to spend your time. The accounts I looked at hadn't edited for months, even years. All their promotional contributions had already been deleted, they appeared to have given up, and in all likelihood they would never have edited again. In essence, I don't really know how you came across these accounts, but if you were spending time looking for them, please be advised that there isn't really any benefit to the project in chasing them down - your time is probably better spent elsewhere. Please take this in the spirit it is intended - I appreciate the efforts you've gone to, I'm just not sure that it's necessary here. Best wishes, Girth Summit _(blether) 21:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I came to make the same comment, Jlwoodwa, about tagging User pages CSD U5 when the editors have stopped editing years ago. I'm sure these User pages are out there but this is not an urgent need for action. There are more productive uses of your time than going through old User pages. We could use your talent in other areas. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"+wpbs" edits

Hi, My watchlist is flowing over with your edits to talk pages marked "+wpbs". I take it that you are not aware that Cewbot is busy adding these "WikiProject banner shell" templates, so you don't have to waste time on that. However, at the same time you've been changing assessments. In one case, you re-assessed an article with an image, an infobox, multiple sections, 13 references, and one external link from "C-class" to stub, also adding a stub template to the article itself. I started going through your edits and reverted some, but there are way too many and would take me hours, so please have a look at our assessment criteria and then clean up this mess. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Luigi board" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Luigi board has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § Luigi board until a consensus is reached. 2601:883:C383:6120:0:0:0:A59B (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAs

Template:IPAs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nardog (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, jlwoodwa,

You are tagging pages for "vandalism" that aren't obviously vandalism so I have reverted your edits. Please review WP:CSD, carefully, so you understand the criteria, intimately, when they apply and to which namespaces they apply to. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you really saying that creating a new page with "hi. the answer is pi 75...WOOO" does not count as Wikipedia:Vandalism § Silly vandalism? And WP:G3 applies to every namespace. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Overtagging

Hi, how does This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations not cover unreferenced ? The eternal links can be considered as references Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Lacking sources entirely is a more specific problem than merely lacking inline citations to those sources. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not lacking sources entirely as the external links can count as references such as the two reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(I hadn't seen your revision.)

Watch out for lists of general references that someone has incorrectly listed under ==External links==. If the link leads to a reliable source that supports some article content, then that website is a reference, not an external link.
— Template:Unreferenced/doc#When to use

In that case, I agree. I suppose I should check, when I come across an apparently-unreferenced article with {{no footnotes}}, that the external links are not in fact suitable references. Thanks for explaining. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

More overtagging April 22, 2024

What is the utility to the Wikipedia project of putting "Old prod" templates onto talk pages? Especially for a decade-old discussion, already identified as a "prod" on the talk page. This is usueless page clutter and makes talk pages harder to read; it is as bad as all the bot chatter that used to litter talk pages. Heven forfend someone has a useful comment ona talk page, it wil be buried under all the pretty templates. Useless Wikwanking, I think. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)